ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Qualitative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Valvular atrial fibrillation (VAF) increases the risk of thromboembolic events, which require anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke. Warfarin has become the standard treatment, yet an increasing number of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are becoming popular; however, their role in treating VAF remains unclear. This systematic review evaluated the safety outcomes and effectiveness of DOACs and warfarin treatment for patients with VAF. A systematic database search was performed according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines through PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The study included adult VAF patients who received DOACs or warfarin. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated. The review process included independent screening of studies by multiple authors, who also extracted the data. Due to significant differences in research approaches and outcome measurements, a qualitative analysis was conducted. A total of 537 records were reviewed; three studies met the inclusion criteria. The safety profiles of DOACs matched or surpassed those of warfarin in terms of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage occurrence. The efficacy results showed comparable outcomes, but researchers observed distinct results on the basis of valve type. Although existing evidence does not support the use of DOACs in patients with mechanical valves or severe mitral stenosis, our results suggest that they may be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin. Due to the limited availability of high-quality data, further randomized controlled trials are needed to develop evidence-based anticoagulation strategies.
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.