SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2019
Comparing clinical outcomes of NOACs with warfarin on atrial fibrillation with Valvular heart diseases: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A European Academy of Neurology guideline on medical management issues in dementia.European journal of neurology · 2020Guideline
- Efficacy and safety outcomes in novel oral anticoagulants versus vitamin-K antagonist on post-TAVI patients: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease Without Mechanical Valves.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Thromboembolism and Major Bleeding in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and EHRA Type 2 Valvular Heart Disease: The Jordan Atrial Fibrillation (JoFib) Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2023Article
- Review
- Incidence and Risk Factors for Residual Adverse Events Despite Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: Results From Phase II/III of the GLORIA-AF Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Residual Stroke Risk in Atrial Fibrillation.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWarfarin is the standard of care and NOAC (Novel oral anticoagulants) are a group of newer drugs for such purposes. NOAC has a generally better profile (Clear interaction, less side effect, require less monitoring). However, its efficacy on valvular atrial fibrillation remains unclear.
methodWe researched literature articles from Embase, Cochrane and PubMed. Then we meta-analysed these six articles to assess pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) using random-effects model for stroke, systemic embolic event, major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Heterogeneity across study was tested with Cochran's Q Test and I
resultsWe collected 496 articles in total and finally we included six articles in our meta-analysis. For SSEE (Stroke, Systemic Embolic Event), the pooled relative risk showed a significantly better clinical outcome of NOAC (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.95). However, there is no significant difference in major bleeding (RR: 0.714, 95% CI:0.46 to 1.11) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.21).
conclusionCompared to Warfarin, NOAC is significantly more protective against the embolic event, but no significant difference in lowering risk of major bleeding, all-cause mortality or all aspects of post-TAVI (Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation).
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.