ReviewCureus2023
Efficacy and Safety of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- NOACs effects in the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation-related ischemic stroke/TIA: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of novel anticoagulant therapies in patients with chronic kidney disease-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Associations between rivaroxaban dose, gut microbiota, and coagulation parameters in a rat model.Thrombosis journal · 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent times, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs)/direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as an alternative to the traditionally used Vitamin K oral antagonists (VKA) like warfarin for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs in patients with AF and, thus, the related thromboembolic risks and sequelae. Of the 131 published articles we examined, 11 were included in an in-depth systematic review. The articles we reviewed were from the past ten years, from 2013 onward. The analysis derived the efficacy and safety of NOACs in patients with AF and also included different patients' baseline characteristics and subgroups. This systematic review reiterates previous research findings of superior efficacy and safety of the use of NOACs in the AF population and also illuminates certain head-to-head comparisons of individual NOACs with warfarin. It digressed into subgroups of patients with different baseline characteristics to provide evidence and support the existing guidelines for the use of NOACs in the treatment of AF. Overall, there is marked efficacy and safety of NOACs in patients with AF, be they elderly or Asian, with decreased renal function, or with other comorbidities. Adherence to NOACs was also satisfactory. Despite such a review, there needs to be more research on vast subgroups and also on reversal antidotes like andexanet alfa and idarucizumab, as well as more head-to-head analysis between NOACs over a long duration of study, which would provide more answers and pinpoint reasons as to the differences that exist between demographics and subgroups in the usage of NOACs.
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.