ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2022
Assessment of Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use at a Community Teaching Hospital.
Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become popular choices for both the treatment and prevention of thromboembolic events. However, these agents pose additional risks to patients due to complex dosing, insufficient monitoring, and inconsistent patient compliance. This study evaluates the appropriateness of DOAC prescribing for patients who received an order for apixaban or rivaroxaban over a 6-month period. The primary outcome is percentage of inappropriately prescribed DOAC regimens. Secondary outcomes include an effectiveness endpoint of stroke or embolism and a safety endpoint of major bleeding documented during or within 60 days of the initial visit as well as number of pharmacist clinical interventions. DOAC orders were appropriate 73% of the time. Of the 27% of inappropriate orders, approximately half were apixaban and half were rivaroxaban. The most common reason for an inappropriate order for apixaban was due to atrial fibrillation dosing, and the most common reason for an inappropriate rivaroxaban order was due to dose-indication mismatch. There were 30 pharmacist clinical interventions on DOAC orders that were documented during the 6-month period, and the most common reason for a pharmacist intervention was duplication with another anticoagulant.
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.