ReviewThrombosis journal2024
Clinical decision support systems to optimize adherence to anticoagulant guidelines in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Thrombosis journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early versus late oral anticoagulants after acute ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Pooled it
- Construction and application of a smart hospital platform-based VTE risk management system.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Adherence to oral thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation: an overview for clinicians.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of a clinical decision support system for atrial fibrillation: an RCT-based modelling study.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed-field versus conventional thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been utilized as a low-cost intervention to improve healthcare process measures. Thus, we aim to estimate CDSS efficacy to optimize adherence to oral anticoagulant guidelines in eligible patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through August 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023471806.
resultsWe included nine RCTs with a total of 25,573 patients. There was no significant difference, with the use of CDSS compared to routine care, in the number of patients prescribed anticoagulants (RR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.98, 1.14], P = 0.16), the number of patients prescribed antiplatelets (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.97, 1.06], P = 0.59), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.19, 95% CI [0.31, 4.50], P = 0.80), major bleeding (RR: 0.84, 95% CI [0.21, 3.45], P = 0.81), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 1.05, 95% CI [0.52, 2.16], P = 0.88). However, CDSS was significantly associated with reduced incidence of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.18, 95% CI [0.06, 0.54], P = 0.002) and cerebral or systemic embolic event (RR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.01, 0.83], P = 0.03).
conclusionWe report no significant difference with the use of CDSS compared to routine care in anticoagulant or antiplatelet prescription in eligible patients with AF. CDSS was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial infarction and cerebral or systemic embolic events.
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.