ArticleBJGP open2025
General practice-related variation in oral anticoagulant treatment of atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuideline-adherent oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment in atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a challenge. In Denmark, most patients with AF are treated in general practice. Nevertheless, determinants of OAC prescription in primary care are poorly understood.
aimTo investigate variation in OAC treatment adherence between general practice clinics and to identify clinic characteristics associated with a lower propensity to prescribe OAC treatment. DESIGN &
settingNationwide register-based cohort study including prevalent and incident patients with AF and CHA
methodThe main outcome was OAC treatment adherence assessed as proportion of days covered (PDC). We used clinic OAC propensity to evaluate variation. OAC propensity was quantified as ratios between observed and expected adherence. Expected adherence was estimated based on the composition of the clinic patient populations. Sampled reference populations were constructed to account for random variation. Linear regression models examined associations between OAC propensity and clinic characteristics.
resultsThe PDC with OAC treatment in the AF population was 78%. OAC propensity in clinics in the 90
conclusionThe study suggests persistent underutilisation of OAC treatment in patients with AF and little variation in OAC prescription patterns across general practice clinics.
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.