ArticleBMC neurology2019
Stroke prevention in patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation in Germany - a cross sectional survey.
Article in BMC neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supporting anticoagulant treatment decision making to optimise stroke prevention in complex patients with atrial fibrillation: a cluster randomised trial.BMC family practice · 2020Trial
- Anticoagulation Adherence: Bridging the Gap between Acute Stroke Treatment and Long-Term Secondary Prevention.Cerebrovascular diseases extra · 2024Article
- Prediction Model Construction for Ischemic Stroke Recurrence with BP Network and Multivariate Logistic Regression and Effect of Individualized Health Education.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Etiology of recurrent large vessel occlusions treated with repeated thrombectomy.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2020Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is present in 15-20% of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Oral anticoagulation reduces the risk of AF-related recurrent stroke but clinical guideline recommendations are rather vague regarding its use in the acute phase of stroke. We aimed to assess the current clinical practice of medical stroke prevention in AF patients during the acute phase of ischemic stroke.
methodsIn April 2017, a standardized anonymous questionnaire was sent to clinical leads of all 298 certified stroke units in Germany.
resultsOverall, 154 stroke unit leads participated (response rate 52%). Anticoagulation in the acute phase of stroke is considered feasible in more than 90% of AF patients with ischemic stroke. Clinicians assume that about two thirds of all AF patients (range 20-100%) are discharged on oral anticoagulation. According to local preferences, acetylsalicylic acid is given orally in the majority of patients with delayed initiation of oral anticoagulation. A non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulant (NOAC) is more often prescribed than a vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulant (VKA). VKA is more often chosen in patients with previous VKA intake than in VKA naive patients. In the minority of patients, stroke unit leads discuss the prescription of a specific oral anticoagulant with the treating general practitioner. Adherence to medical stroke prevention after hospital discharge is not assessed on a regular basis in any patient by the majority of participating stroke centers.
conclusionsEarly secondary stroke prevention in AF patients in German stroke units is based on OAC use but prescription modalities vary in clinical practice.
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.