SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2018
Novel oral anticoagulants in the preoperative period: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2018. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Access Site Bleeding Complications with NOACs versus VKAs in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Cardiac Implantable Device Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Risk Factors for Non-Adherence to Medications That Affect Surgery: A Retrospective Study in Japan.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) versus warfarin therapy in patients undergoing different operations. We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and reports presented at scientific meetings. The efficacy and safety of NOACs during the perioperative period was compared to that using warfarin. Of the 2652 studies initially reviewed, we identified 9 that included 15,880 patients for the meta-analysis. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran increased the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.78, P = 0.02). Apixaban (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.99, P = 0.04) reduced thrombotic events. NOAC therapy decreased thrombotic events in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92, P = 0.02). Compared to warfarin, the administration of NOACs in the perioperative period has the same risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding. But patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery may benefit more from perioperative NOAC therapy. Apixaban may reduce thrombotic events and dabigatran increases the risk of major bleeding during the perioperative period.
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.