ReviewJournal of comparative effectiveness research2017
Comparative effectiveness of rivaroxaban in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
Review in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism patients: a meta-analysis of real-world studies.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Malignancy-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Mortality, Recurrence, and Bleeding Risks.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants by Dementia Status in Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Frailty and Clinical Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation : A Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Article
- Risk of hospitalised bleeding in comparisons of oral anticoagulant options for the primary treatment of venous thromboembolism.British journal of haematology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rivaroxaban is a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a common arrhythmia. In this review, we summarize the effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin and the DOACs dabigatran, apixaban and edoxaban. The primary focus is on primary evidence from clinical trials, indirect comparison studies and real-world studies. While there are gaps in the literature, the evidence thus far indicates that rivaroxaban is superior to warfarin and similar to dabigatran, apixaban and edoxaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, although rivaroxaban may be associated with an elevated bleeding risk compared with other DOACs.
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.