SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018
Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI accuracy in warfarin dose prediction across ethnic groups.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- The Role of Genetics in Stroke Risk and Outcome: A Review of Current Evidence.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Oral anticoagulants: a systematic overview of reviews on efficacy and safety, genotyping, self-monitoring, and stakeholder experiences.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Warfarin dosing algorithms: A systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Secondary Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Cohort Studies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of Warfarin Initiation at 3 mg Versus 5 mg for Anticoagulation of Patients with Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Trial
- CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotyping for the quality of long-standing warfarin treatment in Russian patients.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2020Trial
- Article
- Ethnic Diversity and Warfarin Pharmacogenomics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Trends in oral anticoagulant prescribing in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a population-based study in the UK.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Warfarin dose requirement in patients having severe thrombosis or thrombophilia.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Reply to 'Comment on 'Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials' by Tse et al.'British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- Comment on 'Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials' by Tse et al.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPrevious trials on the effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing have been inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing genotype-guided to conventional dosing strategies.
methodsPubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 October 2017.
resultsA total of 76 and 94 entries were retrieved were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library, respectively. A total of 2626 subjects in the genotype-guided dosing (mean age 63.3 ± 5.8 years; 46% male) and 2604 subjects in the conventional dosing (mean age 64.7 ± 6.1 years; 46% male) groups (mean follow-up duration 64 days) from 18 trials were included. Compared with conventional dosing, genotype-guided dosing significantly shortened the time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (mean difference 2.6 days, standard error 0.3 days; P < 0.0001; I
conclusionsGenotype-guided warfarin dosing offers better safety with less bleeding compared with conventional dosing strategies. No significant benefit on thromboembolism or mortality was evident.
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.