ArticleCJC open2020
Clinical Discussions in Antithrombotic Therapy Management in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Delphi Consensus Panel.
Article in CJC open, 2020. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Cross-Sectional Study on Chinese Geriatricians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation Patients.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Delphi consensus on oral anticoagulation management in special clinical situations in the cardiology setting.Future cardiology · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with stable coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.Thrombosis journal · 2022Article
- Effects of Left Atrial Appendage Closure on Neuroendocrine Function in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Antithrombotic Therapy With Oral Anticoagulants in Real-World Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Atrial Fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have entered clinical practice for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation or prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. However, remaining uncertainty regarding DOAC use in some clinical scenarios commonly encountered in the real world has not been fully explored in clinical trials.
methodsWe report on use of a Delphi consensus process on DOAC use in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients. The consensus process dealt with 9 main topics: (i) DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients; (ii) therapeutic options for patients with stable total time in range treated with vitamin K antagonists; (iii) therapeutic options for patients aged > 85 years; (iv) therapeutic management of hyperfiltering patients; (v) pharmacologic interactions; (vi) therapeutic options in the long-term treatment (prevention) of patients with AF and acute coronary syndrome after the triple therapy; (vii) low doses of DOACs in AF patients; (viii) ischemic stroke in patients inappropriately treated with low doses of DOACs; (ix) management of patients taking DOACs with left atrial appendage thrombosis.
resultsA total of 101 physicians (cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, and hematologists) from Italy expressed their level of agreement on each statement by using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = somewhat agree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). Votes 1-2 were considered to be disagreement; votes 3-5 were considered to be agreement. Agreement among the respondents of ≥ 66% for each statement was considered consensus. A brief discussion of the results for each topic is also reported.
conclusionsIn clinical practice, there is still uncertainty on DOAC use, especially in elderly, fragile, comorbid, and hyperfiltering patients.
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.