ReviewCardiovascular drugs and therapy2024
Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Navigating Through Clinical Challenges.
Review in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potentially Clinically Significant Drug-Drug Interactions in Older Adults with Atrial Fibrillation and Multimorbidity: Prevalence, Correlates, and Association with Adverse Clinical Outcomes in a Swedish National Register-Based Study.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes in Anemic Women Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
- Anticoagulant versus Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients with Coronary Artery Ectasia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
- Open Issues in the Management of Otcagerian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease: Are we Ready for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) as First-Line Therapy for Thromboembolic Risk Prevention?Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved, for over a decade, by both European and American medicine agencies, for treatment and prevention of several cardiovascular conditions. Since then, an increasing amount of data has been added to the medical literature day by day, resulting in a dichotomy in selection of the appropriate agent, dosage, and duration of treatment for special populations with multiple comorbidities. Considering these issues, we have prepared a comprehensive review for the clinical practitioner, to optimize the DOAC utilization in clinical practice.
methodsA thorough literature search and review was conducted, concerning mainly the last decade. Our review focused on the current guidelines and the most recently published studies in PubMed, Science Direct Scopus, and Google Scholar to date.
conclusionThe purpose of this study is to provide guidance for healthcare professionals for making proper decisions when confronted with clinical challenges. Nevertheless, further research is required to establish DOAC superiority in complicated cases, where there is clinical uncertainty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37552381What 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.