ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Direct-acting oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in relation to risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Article
- Narrative Review of Management Strategies and Risk Mitigation for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving Warfarin.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used, with studies showing a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but overall data for GIB risk remains debatable. The objective was to assess non-fatal and fatal GIB risk in patients on DOACs compared with warfarin from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
methodsRCTs comparing warfarin and DOACs for various indications (atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, insertion of mechanical heart valves) were included. The primary endpoint was any GIB event. Other clinical events, such as fatal GIB, and effects of age (≤60 years or older), time in therapeutic range for warfarin, and choice of individual DOACs on GIB risk, were also assessed.
results14 RCTs were included, comprising 87,407 participants (DOACs n=46,223, warfarin control n=41,184). The risk of GIB with DOACs was similar to that of warfarin (relative risk [RR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.27). Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.03-1.48) and dabigatran (RR 1.38, 95%CI 1.12-1.71) had a higher risk of any GIB, whereas fatal GIB risk was lower in the DOACs group (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.15-0.82). The risk of DOAC-related fatal GIB was lower in patients aged ≤60 years and in those with poor coagulation control (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.15-0.98).
conclusionsDOACs compared with warfarin have a lower risk of fatal GIB, especially in those aged <60 years and those with poor coagulation control. However, the risk of GIB was comparable with warfarin and DOACs, except for rivaroxaban and dabigatran.
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.