ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2018
Oral anticoagulant therapy and tooth extraction, does the evidence support drug holidays?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experts' consensus on perioperative management of tooth extractions in patients receiving oral antithrombotic treatment.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane library, China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM), China National Knowledge infrastructure (CNKI).Study SelectionThis study included only human randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs). To be included studies had to include patients prescribed oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) requiring dental extraction(s). Comparison was made between patients discontinuing OAT for the dental extraction(s) and those continuing with their OAT. The outcome measured was post-operative bleeding identified by clinician or patient.Data extraction and synthesisThe methods of data extraction were based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The search was carried out by two reviewers from the data sources listed above. There was no indication of hand searching references of relevant studies or reputable publications, nor any mention of contacting clinical experts or researchers in this field. Language restrictions were unclear. The included studies were assessed for bias using a seven point classification, and a clear traffic light diagram was included to demonstrate the risk of bias of the included studies.ResultsNine hundred and sixty-eight studies were identified with six meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the six studies, four were RCTs and two were CCTs encompassing 314 subjects who continued their OAT during tooth extraction(s) and 277 who discontinued their OAT to allow for tooth extraction(s). Five of the six studies were found to have high risk of bias.A meta-analysis of the six studies was conducted. The incidence of post-operative bleeding was 10.8% where OAT was continued and 8.3% where it was discontinued, showing no statistically significant difference. The relative risk ratio to continuing OAT during tooth extraction was 1.31 and 95% confidence interval, albeit with a wide range of 0.79-2.14.ConclusionsAccording to the current literature available on this subject, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that patients continuing OAT during tooth extraction do not have an increased incidence of post-operative bleeding following tooth extraction compared to patients who discontinue their OAT.
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.