SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2018
Methodologic Differences Across Studies of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Lead to Varying Estimates of Stroke Risk.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodologic Differences Across Studies of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Lead to Varying Estimates of Stroke Risk.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Pooled it
- Association of Race/Ethnicity With Oral Anticoagulant Use in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II.JAMA cardiology · 2018Trial
- Validity of Simple Algorithms to Identify Recurrence of Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Two Danish Nationwide Registries.Clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) assume that stroke risk scheme point scores correspond to fixed stroke rates. However, reported stroke rates vary widely across AF cohort studies, including studies from the same country. Reasons for this variation are unclear. This study compares methodologies used to assemble and analyze large AF cohorts worldwide and assesses potential bias in estimating stroke rates. METHODS AND
resultsFrom a previous systematic review of AF cohorts, we analyzed studies including at least 5000 patients. We assessed methods used to generate rates of ischemic stroke off anticoagulants, according to a structured inventory of database interrogation methods. Nine studies (497 578 total patients) met our criteria. Overall cohort stroke rates ranged from 0.45% to 7.03% per year. In bivariate study-level analysis, multiple features were associated with higher stroke rates, including AF identified as inpatients versus outpatients (rate ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval, 1.19, 5.68), and lack of clinical validation of outcome events (rate ratio 4.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.06, 15.70). European studies reported rates more than 4-fold higher than North American studies.
conclusionsAmong AF cohort studies, differences in the composition, method of assembly, determination of clinical features and outcomes, and analytic approach were strongly associated with reported stroke rates. Our study highlights the need for standardized and validated methodologies for AF cohort assembly and analysis to generate accurate stroke rates to better support anticoagulation guidelines for 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.