SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018
A systematic review of clinicians' views and experiences of direct-acting oral anticoagulants in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
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 15 papers, 5 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- A conceptual model of factors potentially influencing prescribing decisions for chronic conditions: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Oral anticoagulants: a systematic overview of reviews on efficacy and safety, genotyping, self-monitoring, and stakeholder experiences.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Patients' and clinicians' perceptions of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic narrative review and meta-analysis.BMC family practice · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes associated with the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of clinicians' views and experiences of direct-acting oral anticoagulants in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Perspectives and Experiences of Doctors and Pharmacists on the Clinical Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Saudi Arabia.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) and Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) Safety Comparison Based on Data from EudraVigilance Database.Hematology reports · 2025Article
- Temporal trends in anticoagulation use and clinical outcomes among medicare beneficiaries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- Practices, beliefs, and attitudes of clinicians in prescribing direct oral anticoagulants for obese adults with atrial fibrillation: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Optimizing adherence and persistence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy in atrial fibrillation.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Factors influencing primary care physicians' prescribing behavior of anticoagulant therapy for the management of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Singapore: a qualitative research study.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- World Café approach: exploring the future vision of oral anticoagulants for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Ireland.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Direct-acting oral anticoagulants and alopecia: The valuable support of postmarketing data.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Prescribers' views and experiences of using direct acting oral anticoagulants in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A survey in remote and rural Scotland.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Prescribers' perceptions of benefits and limitations of direct acting oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWhile a plethora of systematic reviews have provided evidence of efficacy, effectiveness and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, there has been little emphasis on clinicians' perspectives. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise, synthesize and present the available evidence of clinicians' views and experiences.
methodsStudies published in English from January 2006 to July 2017 reporting the views and/or experiences of doctors, nurses or pharmacists on any individual DOAC or as a pharmacological group were included. Studies were assessed for quality by two researchers, data extracted and findings synthesized using a narrative approach.
resultsFollowing exclusion of duplicates, 777 titles, 394 abstracts and 196 studies were screened. Ten studies were included in the review, nine of which were quantitative (cross-sectional surveys) and one qualitative (semistructured interviews), with marked heterogeneity in outcomes reported. Studies were conducted exclusively in Europe and the USA. In those studies reporting clinician preference, DOACs were first choice over warfarin in naïve patients, based on perceptions of evidence of effectiveness equivalent or superior to warfarin and superior safety. Other advantageous factors were in those with an unstable International Normalized Ratio and likely to miss appointments. There were, however, concerns relating to management of over-anticoagulation and experiences of observed bleeding rates.
conclusionThere is a limited evidence base of clinicians' perspectives of DOACs, necessitating further research, particularly given the trajectory of increased use worldwide.
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.