SynthesisAnatolian journal of cardiology2021
The efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in preventing clinical events in atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Research Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness and safety of edoxabanFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Unsolved issues of The Efficacy and Safety of Edoxaban.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of arrhythmia. Warfarin reduces the incidence and mortality of strokes in patients with AF. Edoxaban reduces the bleeding risk in patients with AF. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in preventing clinical events in patients with AF through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were retrieved from medical literature databases. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the primary and safety endpoints. In total, five articles (10 trial comparisons) containing 24,836 patients were retrieved. Of these patients, 16,268 (65.5%) received edoxaban and 8,568 (34.5%) received warfarin. Compared with warfarin, edoxaban significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death (CVD), major bleeding, and non-major bleeding (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.93, I2 : 0.0%; RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.59-0.71, I2 : 75.6%; and RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.84, I2 : 79.3%, respectively). Edoxaban did not increase the incidence of stroke, systemic embolic events, myocardial infarction, and adverse events compared with warfarin (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90-1.11, I2 : 42.8%; RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.67-1.49, I2 : 0.0%; RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.93-1.27, I2 : 0.0%; RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.10, I2: 46.4%, respectively). This meta-analysis indicated that compared with warfarin, edoxaban can significantly reduce the incidence of CVD and major and non-major bleeding. The anticoagulant effect and safety of edoxaban may be better than those of warfarin.
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.