ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Agonists in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and End-Stage Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study is mentioned, but it could be further clarified by explicitly stating the aim to compare the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) specifically in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We conducted a thorough electronic search of the literature, encompassing databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from their inception up to March 5, 2024. Furthermore, we meticulously examined the bibliographies of included studies to identify additional relevant literature. The reporting of this meta-analysis adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. The endpoints evaluated in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding. Data analysis was carried out utilizing RevMan Version 5.4 (Cochrane, London, United Kingdom). Dichotomous outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding, were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 11 studies were incorporated in this meta-analysis, comprising a pooled sample size of 44,863 participants with AF. The pooled analysis revealed no significant disparity between DOACs and VKAs concerning stroke or systemic embolism (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.14) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.00). However, there was a noteworthy reduction in the risk of major bleeding events associated with DOACs compared to VKAs (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.96). Consequently, DOACs may be considered a viable alternative to warfarin in patients with ESRD. However, we need further larger clinical trials to validate these findings.
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.