ArticlePloS one2018
Benefit, risk and cost of new oral anticoagulants and warfarin in atrial fibrillation; A multicriteria decision analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Benefit-risk assessment of traditional Chinese medicine preparations of sinomenine using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Article
- Machine Learning for Prediction of Stable Warfarin Dose in US Latinos and Latin Americans.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use: A Practical Guide to Common Clinical Challenges.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Review
- Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2020Review
- Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Develop an Efficacy-Safety Profile of Parenteral Analgesics Used in the Treatment of Postoperative Pain.Journal of pain research · 2020Article
- Apixaban-induced haematoma causing small bowel intussusception.BMJ case reports · 2019Article
- Linguistic neutrosophic power Muirhead mean operators for safety evaluation of mines.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWarfarin and new oral anticoagulants are effective in reducing stroke in atrial fibrillation; however, the benefits and risks rates in clinical trials show heterogeneity for each anticoagulant, and is unknown the cost influence on a model considering most of the treatment consequences. We designed a benefit-risk and cost assessment of oral anticoagulants.
designWe followed the roadmap proposed by IMI-PROTECT and the considerations of emerged good practice to perform Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). The roadmap defines the following steps: (1) planning, (2) evidence gathering and data preparation, (3) analyses, (4) explorations, and (5) conclusions. We defined two reference points (0-100) to allocate numerical values for scores and weights, and used an analogue numeric scale to assess physicians' preferences. As benefits of the anticoagulant therapy, we included reductions in stroke and all-cause mortality; intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, minor bleeding and myocardial infarction were considered risks. We also made an estimation of the annual drug cost per person. MAIN
resultsThe scores were: Apixaban 33, Dabigatrán 25, warfarin 18 and Rivaroxaban 14 this score reveals the most preferred up to the less preferred option, considering the benefit-risk ratio and drug costs altogether. The relative model weights were: 51.1% for risks, 40.4% for benefits and 8.5% for cost. The sensitivity analysis confirms the model robustness.
conclusionsFrom this analysis, apixaban should be considered as the preferred anticoagulant option -due to a better benefit-risk balance and a minor cost influence- followed by dabigatran, warfarin and rivaroxaban.
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.