Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32509316›Full record

SynthesisOpen heart2020

Polypharmacy and health outcomes in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Celine Gallagher, Karin Nyfort-Hansen, Debra Rowett, Christopher X Wong, Melissa E Middeldorp, Rajiv Mahajan, Dennis H Lau, Prashanthan Sanders, Jeroen M Hendriks

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Open heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Celine GallagherCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Karin Nyfort-HansenCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Debra RowettSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia and Drug and Therapeutics Information Service, Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Christopher X WongCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Melissa E MiddeldorpCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Rajiv MahajanCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3375-5568
Dennis H LauCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Prashanthan SandersCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jeroen M HendriksCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4326-9256
Royal Adelaide Hospital · AUUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of polypharmacy on health outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF). Data sources: PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception until 31 July 2019. Studies including post hoc analyses of prospective randomised controlled trials or observational design that examined the impact of polypharmacy on clinically significant outcomes in AF including mortality, hospitalisations, stroke, bleeding, falls and quality of life were eligible for inclusion. Results: A total of six studies were identified from the systematic review, with three studies reporting on common outcomes and used for a meta-analysis. The total study population from the three studies was 33 602 and 37.2% were female. Moderate and severe polypharmacy, defined as 5-9 medicines and >9 medicines, was observed in 42.7% and 20.7% of patients respectively, and was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.54, p<0.001; HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.41, p<0.001, respectively), major bleeding (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.52, p<0.001; HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.09, p<0.001, respectively) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, p<0.01; HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.64, p<0.01, respectively). There was no statistically significant association between polypharmacy and stroke or systemic embolism or intracranial bleeding. Among other examined outcomes, polypharmacy was associated with cardiovascular death, hospitalisation, reduced quality of life and poorer physical function. Conclusions: Polypharmacy is highly prevalent in the AF population and is associated with numerous adverse outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018105298.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyAgedAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationFemaleHemorrhageHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsStrokeTreatment OutcomeAnticoagulantsatrial fibrillationpharmacologystroke

Identifiers

PMID32509316
PMCPMC7254112
OpenAlexW3016088535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.