ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2017
Drug therapy in anticoagulation: which drug for which patient?
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.Blood advances · 2020Guideline
- Article
- Personalized delayed anticoagulation therapy alleviates postoperative bleeding in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Effect of anticoagulants on fibrin clot structure: A comparison between vitamin K antagonists and factor Xa inhibitors.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Article
- Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2019Article
- Reversal Strategies for Intracranial Hemorrhage Related to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Medications.Critical care research and practice · 2018Review
- Targeting limited NHS resources to affect optimal care.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum: Drug therapy in anticoagulation: which drug for which patient?2017 · Dosage error in article text
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Four non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now licensed and available in the UK, offering unprecedented choices in anticoagulant therapy for clinicians and patients. NOACs have many clear benefits over warfarin, the most striking being the reduction in intracranial haemorrhage. However, a number of uncertainties remain: their efficacy in certain situations, utility of drug assays, significance of drug interactions and management of bleeding. In the absence of any direct comparative trials, it is not clear that any of the NOACs is significantly better than the others in any of the licensed indications. The differential activities, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, excretion and side effects of the agents should be considered when selecting the most appropriate anticoagulant. In this article, we discuss how, with careful selection for the relevant indication, NOACs can simplify therapy while improving outcomes. We aim to provide clinicians with the information needed to select the most suitable anticoagulant drug for an individual patient in a given situation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.