ArticleBiomedical reports2018
Optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systemic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A challenge for antithrombotic treatment is patients who present with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome, particularly in patients who have undergone coronary percutaneous intervention with stenting (PCIS). In the present study, a total of nine observational trials published prior to July 2017 that investigated the effects of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin + clopidogrel) and triple oral antithrombotic therapy (TOAT; DAPT + warfarin) among patients with AF concurrent to PCIS were collected from the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases and conference proceedings of cardiology, gastroenterology and neurology meetings. A meta-analysis was performed using fixed- or random-effect models according to heterogeneity. The subgroups were also analyzed on the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke and bleeding events in the two treatment groups. Analysis of baseline characteristics indicated that there was no significant difference in the history of coexistent disease or conventional therapies between the DAPT and TOAT groups. The primary end point incidence was 2,588 patients in the DAPT group (n=13,773) and 871 patients in the TOAT group (n=5,262) following pooling of all nine trials. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of primary end points between the DAPT and TOAT groups. Odds ratio (OR)=0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.73-1.27, P=0.79, with heterogeneity between trials (I
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.