SynthesisJournal of neurology2026
NOACs effects in the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation-related ischemic stroke/TIA: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2026. 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.
- Atrial fibrillation in stroke patients: facts, numbers and current challenges.Neurological research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsRivaroxaban has been approved for the primary prevention of stroke with non-valvular atrial fibrillation caused by one or more risk factors. However, the optimal antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) with ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) had been uncertain. We compared the safety and efficacy of novel oral anticoagulants. (NOACs) and Warfarin in treating AF with ischemic stroke.
methodsSeven databases were searched from inception up to December 2024 for studies comparing NOACs and Warfarin in AF with ischemic stroke. 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 cohort studies with 128,808 patients were included. A random-effects model or fix effects model was used.
resultsPooled results showed that the NOACs are superior to Warfarin in the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.90, 95%CI [0.82,1.0], P = 0.04) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.83, 95%CI [0.76,0.92], P = 0.0003). As well as NOACs has lower risk in total bleeding (RR 0.79, 95%CI [0.76,0.83], P < 0.00001), fatal bleeding (RR0.64, 95% CI [0.54,0.76], P < 0.00001), hemorrhagic stroke (RR0.50, 95%CI [0.43,0.58], P < 0.00001), and intracranial bleeding (RR 0.49, 95%CI [0.36,0.65], P < 0.00001) than Warfarin.
conclusionIn the secondary prevention with AF related to ischemic stroke, NOACs showed potential advantages over Warfarin in the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, total bleeding, fatal bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, and intracranial bleeding.
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.