MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155524816 · doi:10.1681/asn.2013040361

Comparisons between Novel Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with CKD

2014· review· en· W2155524816 on OpenAlexafffund
Ziv Harel, Michelle Sholzberg, Prakesh S. Shah, Katerina Pavenski, Shai Har-El, Ron Wald, Chaim M. Bell, Jeffrey Perl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineApixabanRivaroxabanDabigatranRandomized controlled trialRelative riskEdoxabanInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Confidence intervalRenal functionWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban) have been approved by international regulatory agencies to treat atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism in patients with kidney dysfunction. However, altered metabolism of these drugs in the setting of impaired kidney function may subject patients with CKD to alterations in their efficacy and a higher risk of bleeding. This article examined the efficacy and safety of the NOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism in patients with CKD. A systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were conducted to estimate relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CIs) using a random-effects model. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify articles published up to March 2013. We selected published randomized controlled trials of NOACs compared with VKAs of at least 4 weeks' duration that enrolled patients with CKD (defined as creatinine clearance of 30-50 ml/min) and reported data on comparative efficacy and bleeding events. Eight randomized controlled trials were eligible. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy outcomes of stroke and systemic thromboembolism (four trials, 9693 participants; RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.39 to 1.04]) and recurrent thromboembolism or thromboembolism-related death (four trials, 891 participants; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.43 to 2.15]) with NOACs versus VKAs. The risk of major bleeding or the combined endpoint of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (primary safety outcome) (eight trials, 10,616 participants; RR 0.89 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16]) was similar between the groups. The use of NOACs in select patients with CKD demonstrates efficacy and safety similar to those with VKAs. Proactive postmarketing surveillance and further studies are pivotal to further define the rational use of these agents.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.021
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207