ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2023
Clinical comprehensive evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with atrial fibrillation in China.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2023. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly recommended over warfarin in stroke prevention for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is an important evidence gap in choosing the most appropriate DOAC for Chinese patients in clinical practice.
methodsA multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was adopted to build a scoring framework. Attributes and criteria were identified and determined by a scoping literature review, two rounds of Delphi surveys, and a consensus meeting. Weights of each attribute and criterion in the framework were determined using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Evidence was collected based on the domestic or at least Asian data. Scoring methods for each criterion were developed depended on their characteristics and determined with an expert consensus meeting. Comprehensive scores of each DOAC were calculated based on the utility scores of each criterion and their corresponding weights.
resultsA total of 5 attributes, including safety, efficacy, costs/cost-effectiveness, suitability, and accessibility, were determined, and 16 criteria were under the 5 attributes. The safety and efficacy were ranked as the top two important attributes with the weights of 38.8% and 35.9%, respectively, while the suitability received the lowest weight of 7.9%. The comprehensive score for edoxaban was the highest (72.3), followed by dabigatran (49.7), rivaroxaban (37.9), and apixaban (35.8).
conclusionsThis study provided a scoring framework developed for comprehensive evaluation of DOACs in China. The ranking of DOACs could help to support the decision-making in clinical practice. The framework could provide a reference for comprehensive evaluation of other drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37755492What 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.