ReviewCureus2017
NOACs vs. Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.
Review in Cureus, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in US healthcare claims.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- Temporal trends in anticoagulation use and clinical outcomes among medicare beneficiaries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- AF-React study: Prevalence of thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving NOACs - real-world data analysis from northern Portugal primary healthcare.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Effects of Anticoagulant Therapy and Frailty in the Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.Clinical interventions in aging · 2024Article
- Examination of anticoagulation prescription among elderly patients with atrial fibrillation after in-hospital fall.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2022Article
- Management dilemmas in acute ischemic stroke and concomitant acute pulmonary embolism: Case series and literature review.eNeurologicalSci · 2021Review
- Intracranial Atherosclerotic Stenoses: Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Current Therapy Options.Advances in therapy · 2020Review
- Efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants post-kidney transplantation.World journal of transplantation · 2019Article
- International longitudinal registry of patients with atrial fibrillation and treated with rivaroxaban: RIVaroxaban Evaluation in Real life setting (RIVER).Thrombosis journal · 2019Article
- Influence of andrographolide on the pharmacokinetics of warfarin in rats.Pharmaceutical biology · 2018Article
- Just Missing the Mark: Discharging High-risk Atrial Fibrillation / Flutter without Thromboprophylaxis.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation is a heart arrhythmia associated with increased risk for ischemic stroke. Vitamin K antagonists were developed to decrease a patient's clotting risk; however, these medications require therapeutic monitoring and have several drug interactions. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists and several studies have evaluated the ability of NOAC to decrease clotting as well as the risk of major bleeding in comparison to vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin. This study has found that NOACs are as effective as warfarin in reducing stroke and systemic embolism through anticoagulation. Notably, NOACs have a decreased risk of significant bleeding and other secondary adverse events.
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.