ArticlePloS one2020
A Delphi consensus on the management of oral anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain: ACOPREFERENCE study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients with perceived high-bleeding risk and computerized decision support for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: an AF-ALERT substudy : Piazza: outcomes of high-bleeding risk AF patients.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Trial
- Establishing consensus on the implementation of Anticoagulation Stewardship Program with cardiologists in Pakistan: A Delphi study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Consequences of the Poor Anticoagulation Control of Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Vitamin K Antagonists.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients receiving oral anticoagulants for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
- Delphi consensus on oral anticoagulation management in special clinical situations in the cardiology setting.Future cardiology · 2024Article
- A Delphi consensus on the management of anticoagulation in the COVID-19 pandemic: the MONACO study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Review
- Oral Anticoagulant Use and Appropriateness in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Complex Clinical Conditions: ACONVENIENCE Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Assessment and mitigation of bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A Position Paper from the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Clinical Impact of the Time in Therapeutic Range on Early Hospital Readmission in Patients with Acute Heart Failure Treated with Oral Anticoagulation in Internal Medicine.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the level of agreement between cardiologists regarding the management of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Spain. MATERIALS AND
methodsA two-round Delphi study was performed using an online survey. In round 1, panel members rated their level of agreement with the questionnaire items on a 9-point Likert scale. Item selection was based on acceptance by ≥66.6% of panellists and the agreement of the scientific committee. In round 2, the same panellists evaluated those items that did not meet consensus in round 1.
resultsA total of 238 experts participated in round 1; of these, 217 completed the round 2 survey. In round 1, 111 items from 4 dimensions (Thromboembolic and bleeding risk evaluation for treatment decision-making: 18 items; Choice of OAC: 39 items; OAC in specific cardiology situations: 12 items; Patient participation and education: 42 items) were evaluated. Consensus was reached for 92 items (83%). Over 80% of the experts agreed with the use of DOACs as the initial anticoagulant treatment when OAC is indicated. Panellists recommended the use of DOACs in patients at high risk of thromboembolic complications (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3) (83%), haemorrhages (HAS-BLED ≥3) (89%) and poor quality of anticoagulation control (SAMe-TT2R2 >2) (76%), patients who fail to achieve an optimal therapeutic range after 3 months on VKA treatment (93%), and those who are to undergo cardioversion (80%). Panellists agreed that the efficacy and safety profile of each DOAC (98%), the availability of a specific reversal agent (72%) and patient's preference (85%) should be considered when prescribing a DOAC. A total of 97 items were ultimately accepted after round 2.
conclusionsThis Delphi panel study provides expert-based recommendations that may offer guidance on clinical decision-making for the management of OAC in NVAF. The importance of patient education and involvement has been highlighted.
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.