ReviewCureus2024
Revisiting Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Oral Anticoagulants in Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation Management: An Updated 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of left atrial appendage closure on long-term stroke risk in atrial fibrillation: an umbrella review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a significant public health problem due to its association with coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality, especially in the elderly. Therefore, traditional warfarin therapy, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and the recent left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have been compared as treatment approaches. In this regard, we aimed to synthesize the current evidence regarding the comparison these mentioned modalities in patients with AF. A comprehensive database search for records comparing LAAC and DOACs in patients with AF was conducted until December 15, 2023. An updated meta-analysis was conducted using fixed and random effect models to calculate odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Eleven studies were eligible that included a total of 68171 patients. Compared to DOACs, the LAAC group had a lower rate of hospital stay duration (MD -1.23; 95% CI -1.51 to -0.95;
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.