ReviewTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2017
Navigating the choice of oral anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation in the NOAC era.
Review in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world national trends and influencing factors preference of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Edoxaban in Atrial Fibrillation Patients in Routine Clinical Practice: One-Year Follow-Up from the Global Noninterventional ETNA-AF Program.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of ischaemic stroke. The majority of these strokes can be prevented by treatment with oral anticoagulation therapy. The advent of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has resulted in a choice of therapeutic agents available to physicians for anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with AF beyond the long-established vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Pivotal trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of NOACs compared with VKAs, and in some cases superiority, for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular AF. Yet there are no direct head-to-head comparator trials for the efficacy of NOACs. Therefore, the question of which oral anticoagulant for each individual patient can present a challenge to physicians. In this review article, we assess which patients with AF require anticoagulation, review the available therapeutic options, assessing the evidence base for each and offering guidance as to patient-specific factors that can influence this choice.
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.