Observational studyMedicine2020
Web search popularity, publicity, and utilization of direct oral anticoagulants in the United States, 2008-2018: A STROBE-compliant study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of direct oral anticoagulants on viscoelastic testing - A systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- The Role of Viscoelastic Testing in Assessing Hemostasis: A Challenge to Standard Laboratory Assays?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Public interest trends for COVID-19 and pandemic trajectory: A time-series analysis of US state-level data.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Public interest trends for Covid-19 and alignment with the disease trajectory: A time-series analysis of national-level data.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to study the changing popularity of oral anticoagulants and the potential association between media coverage and real-world utilization practice, using time series analysis.In this STROBE-compliant study, we used Google Trends data to study public interest for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) and warfarin in the United States (10-year coverage, beginning July 1st, 2008 ending June 30th, 2018). We validated our findings on a sample of 50 consecutive datasets (accumulated between July 6th, 2018 and October 19th, 2018), using the same search criteria. We used the LexisNexis Academic database to quantify monthly media coverage for DOACs and explored its association with interest by the public, using the cross-correlation coefficient function. Finally, we studied the association between public interest and real-world utilization data, including published US-wide data on ambulatory anticoagulation visits.The approval of dabigatran in 2010 marked an increasing public interest for DOACs. Dabigatran exhibited a steep rise early after Food and Drug Administration approval that peaks in 2011, to be surpassed sequentially by rivaroxaban (2012) and apixaban (2014). Apixaban has outperformed its competitors in popularity since mid-2017, and, by the end of the observation period, was close to warfarin that is on first place. Media coverage was low before approval of the first oral DOAC (dabigatran), increased thereafter (median 13 news articles per month vs 64, P < .001), with peaks on the approval dates (81 vs 48, P = .003). Media coverage had a weak immediate impact on DOACs public interest and public interest patterns preceded changes in ambulatory anticoagulation visits by up to 5 months.For a long-run observation period, a single Google Trends search will suffice to produce robust estimations of the relative popularity between treatment options, such as oral anticoagulants. Media coverage has limited immediate impact and relative public interest is a potential lead indicator of changes in actual utilization.
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.