ReviewThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2025
Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement: An Umbrella Review.
Review in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2025. 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.
- Letter from the Editor in Chief.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025Article
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
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major sequela after bioprosthetic valve replacement (BPVR) in patients with valvular heart disease. This study evaluates the data compiled from different meta-analyses in an umbrella review. We investigated the anticoagulation efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and BPVR. A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and PubMed was completed to find papers published up until June 2024 that could be included in this umbrella review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective observational/cohort studies were primarily identified as the foundation of meta-analyses and peer-reviewed systematic reviews. The quality of the included publications was determined using the AMSTAR 2 tool and the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool, while the overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A total of 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs and observational studies were included in this umbrella review. Among the primary outcomes, the pooled analysis exhibited a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.00;
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.