SynthesisDrug safety2019
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Overview of Systematic Reviews.Drug safety · 2019Pooled it
- Uncovering drug-associated risk signals for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: an integrative pharmacovigilance and proteogenomic study.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation using antiarrhythmic drugs: An international cohort study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Comparative clinical outcomes of acenocoumarol versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: real-world-evidence (SIESTA-A study).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Identifying treatment heterogeneity in atrial fibrillation using a novel causal machine learning method.American heart journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants with antiplatelet agents in patients with venous thromboembolism: A multi-database cohort study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Evaluation of rivaroxaban-, apixaban- and dabigatran-associated hemorrhagic events using the FDA-Adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Bleeding Risk in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Thus, we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed observational studies assessing the comparative effectiveness and safety of DOACs for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2019 for observational studies comparing different DOACs head-to-head in patients with AF. Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Random-effects models were used to meta-analyze data across higher-quality studies.
resultsWe identified 25 cohort studies including 1,079,565 patients with AF treated with DOACs. Meta-analysis of the 19 studies at moderate risk of bias yielded a similar risk of ischemic stroke for rivaroxaban versus dabigatran (six studies; hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.04; I
conclusionsAs head-to-head trials comparing different DOACs do not exist, available evidence derives exclusively from observational studies. These data suggest that while dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban have a similar effect on the risk of ischemic stroke, apixaban may be associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding compared with either dabigatran or rivaroxaban.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31175610What 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.