ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Comparison of Renal Function Estimation Formulae for Dosing Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variability in Nonvitamin K Oral Anticoagulant Dose Eligibility and Adjustment According to Renal Formulae and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With and Without Chronic Kidney Disease: Insights From ORBIT-AF II.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Trial
- Article
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Consensus Recommendations by the Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology on Strategies for Thrombotic and Bleeding Risk Management.European cardiology · 2021Review
- A Novel Creatinine-Based Equation to Estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate in Chinese Population With Chronic Kidney Disease: Implications for DOACs Dosing in Atrial Fibrillation Patients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Chronic Kidney Disease and Its Impact on a Prothrombotic State in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula is recommended to guide clinicians in the choice of the appropriate dosage for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). However, the performance of the CG formula varies depending on the patient's age, weight, and degree of renal function. We aimed to compare the validity of the CG formula with that of Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formulae for dosing DOACs. A total of 6268 consecutive patients on anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (AF) were retrospectively investigated. Among underweight and elderly patients, the CG formula underestimated renal function compared with the non-CG formulae. However, the concordant rate of drug indications between the CG and the non-CG formulae was approximately 94%. On-label uses under the three formulae were associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (but not thromboembolism) compared to warfarin. Although we found differences in estimating renal function and the proportions of drug indications between the CG and non-CG formulae, the risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding were similar to those with warfarin regardless of which formula was used.
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.