ReviewCureus2024
Effectiveness of Novel Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: 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. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia associated with an increased risk of stroke and systemic embolism (SE). Anticoagulation therapy, particularly with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), is essential for stroke prevention in patients with AF. However, the comparative effectiveness of NOACs and warfarin remains debatable. Of the 34 studies included, 14 studies involving 166,845 patients were included in the meta-analysis and 20 studies were included in the systematic review. Our findings indicate that NOACs were associated with a significantly lesser risk of stroke/SE with a relative risk (RR) of 0.84 and p=0.0005, and all-cause mortality RR=0.88 and p=0.006. There were no significant differences between major bleeding events with an RR of 0.87 and p=0.22, and serious adverse events (SAE) with RR=1.01 and p=0.35, compared to warfarin in patients with AF. Our meta-analysis demonstrates strong evidence for the superiority in reducing stroke/SE and all-cause mortality of NOACs compared to warfarin. However, no significant differences were identified in the bleeding outcomes or SAEs between the two groups.
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.