ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Comparative effectiveness of warfarin management strategies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Warfarin Patient Self-Management in the US Health Care System: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patient Self-Management of Warfarin Among Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.Pharmacotherapy · 2026Article
- Self-testing and clinical outcomes in Black and White patients on warfarin for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Observational
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The management of warfarin therapy presents clinical challenges due to its narrow therapeutic index. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different management strategies in patients using warfarin. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and EBSCO Open Dissertation were searched from inception to 8 May 2024. Randomized controlled trials that compared the following interventions: patient self-management (PSM), patient self-testing (PST), anticoagulation management services (AMS), and usual care in patients prescribed warfarin for any indication were included. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were used to rank different interventions. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) online platform. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023491978). Findings: Twenty-eight trials involving 8100 participants were included, with follow-up periods of 1-24 months. Mean warfarin dosages were 4.9-7.2 mg/day. Only PSM showed a significant reduction of major TE risk compared with usual care (RR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.71; I Interpretation: PSM reduces the risk of major TE events compared with usual care, tends to improve anticoagulation control, and should be considered where appropriate. Funding: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant ID 5R18HS027960).
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.