ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2018
Atrial fibrillation in dialysis patients: is there a place for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants?
Review in International urology and nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Atrial Electromechanical Delay to Predict Atrial Fibrillation in Hemodialysis Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2018Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs approximately in 3% of general population, with greater prevalence in elderly. Non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulant agents (NOACs) according to the current European guidelines are recommended for patients with AF at high risk for stroke as a first-choice treatment. NOACs are not inferior to warfarin or some of them are better than warfarin in reducing the rate of ischemic stroke. Moreover, they significantly reduce the rate of intracranial hemorrhages, major bleedings, and mortality compared with warfarin. Nevertheless according to ESC guidelines, NOACs are not recommended in patients with creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min. Observational studies provide contradictive data. Only few new trials are ongoing. Therefore, it is not clear if NOACs should be in the future prescribed to patients with advanced CKD and those on dialysis. Moreover, the risk of stroke and bleeding is much higher in such population than in patients without end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The authors provide data on pros and cons of use of NOACs in ESRD patients with AF.
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.