ReviewIbrain2022
Whether it is safe to start anticoagulation after intracranial hemorrhage within 2 weeks: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Ibrain, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Multidisciplinary Expert Guidance for the Management of Severe Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulation: An Algorithm for Practicing Clinicians.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- A review of the use of oral anticoagulants in individuals with atrial fibrillation who had experienced intracranial hemorrhage in the past.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether restarting anticoagulation (RA) treatment after intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is still controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the relationship between anticoagulation after ICH with the recurrence of hemorrhagic events, ischemic events, and long-term mortality. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to November 2020. We searched the published medical literature to ensure cohort studies involving ICH associated with anticoagulation in adults. Primary outcomes were long-term mortality, hemorrhagic events, and ischemic events (myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, or systemic embolization). We concluded seven retrospective cohorts, including 1876 intracranial hemorrhage patients with indications of anticoagulation. The ratio of the anticoagulant restart was 35.3% (664n). RA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of recurrent ischemic events (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19% to 0.45%,
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.