ArticleHNO2021
[Epistaxis and anticoagulation therapy: an analysis based on health insurance data from Lower Saxony].
Article in HNO, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Etiology and clinical characteristics of primary epistaxis.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Treating epistaxis - who cares for a bleeding nose? A secondary data analysis of primary and secondary care.BMC family practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpistaxis is a common symptom in the medical practice. It is associated with various comorbidities and the use of medications, especially anticoagulants. Despite the high lifetime prevalence, there is limited data on prevalence and possible risk factors.
methodsThe study examines epistaxis care in a large patient population (AOK Lower Saxony) over a ten-year period (2007-2016). Risk factors, age at diagnosis, concomitant medication and comorbidities were analysed and the prevalence in the study period calculated.
results162,167 patients visited their doctors between 2007-2016 (308,947 cases). Most patients were treated as outpatients (96.6%) and 54% of patients were men. Over the study period, the prevalence of epistaxis rose by 21% (increase from 8.6 to 9.3 per 1000 insured persons per year) with a comparatively stable prevalence for the inpatient setting (0.2 per 1000 insured persons per year). In 54,105 of all epistaxis cases (17.5%), the use of antithrombotic drugs was recorded (oral anticoagulants: 9.5%). During the study period, increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants (from 7.7% of cases in 2007 to 11.8% in 2016), especially of NOAC was documented (from 0.1% of cases in 2011 to 5.1% in 2016).
conclusionIn addition to arterial hypertension, the predominant male sex and the typical age distribution, we found that cases of epistaxis often received anticoagulation therapy. This study showed an increase of epistaxis along with rising prescriptions of NOAC. In contrast, no increase of severe epistaxis cases leading to hospitalization was found.
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.