ArticleExpert review of clinical pharmacology2021
Edoxaban for the treatment of pulmonary embolism in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Article in Expert review of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Assay for the Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Edoxaban.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Clinical Outcome of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with History of Atrial Fibrillation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to investigate the clinical performance of edoxaban for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis selecting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admitted to our Institution from 20 May 2020 to 20 November 2020 with computer tomography (CT) detected PE at admission, treated with edoxaban after initial parenteral therapy. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without ARDS at admission and between those with and without CT confirmed PE resolution.
results50 patients were included. Mean follow-up was 42.5 ± 10 days. No baseline differences were found between patients with ARDS (30%) and those without ARDS at admission. Patients with PE resolution (84%) were younger (
conclusionEdoxaban was an effective and safe treatment for acute PE in COVID-19 setting.
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.