SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2022
Standard- vs. low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the morbidity of efficacy endpoints and bleeding events in elderly and young patients treated with the same dose rivaroxaban.Annals of hematology · 2024Pooled it
- Low-Dose Rivaroxaban vs. Aspirin in Addition to Clopidogrel After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Coronary Atherosclerotic Heart Disease Patients with Gastrointestinal Disease.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Trial
- Establishment of an Integrated Population Pharmacokinetic/ Pharmacodynamics Model of Apixaban in Chinese Healthy Population Adjusting for Key Genetic Variants.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLow-dose rivaroxaban is often given to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) around the world, but the rationale for its use remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of standard- or low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with AF through systematic review of literature with meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and Bayer trial website from inception of each database until June 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the pooled effect estimates.
resultsTwo RCTs and 17 cohort studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Indirect comparison of RCTs showed no significant difference between the two rivaroxaban dosages in risk of efficacy or safety outcomes (p > 0.05). Indirect comparison of cohort studies showed a lower risk of MACE among Caucasians in standard-dose group (HR 0.779; 95% CI 0.687-0.884; p < 0.001). Bleeding outcomes did not differ significantly between the two dosage regimens in Asian or Caucasian populations, except that the standard dose was associated with higher risk of major bleeding among elderly Caucasian patients (HR 1.329; 95% CI 1.141-1.547; p < 0.001). The quality of evidence was rated ranging from very low to low for all the efficacy and safety outcomes.
conclusionIn Caucasians with AF, standard-dose rivaroxaban may prevent MACE significantly better than low-dose treatment. Further studies in Asians are needed to verify the advantages of the standard dose.
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.