MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764335093 · doi:10.1177/1074248417731536

Appropriateness of Dabigatran and Rivaroxaban Prescribing in Qatar: A 5-Year Experience

2017· article· en· W2764335093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hazem Elewa, Honain El-Makaty, Zainab Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQatar University
KeywordsDabigatranMedicineRivaroxabanDosingMedical prescriptionWarfarinConfidence intervalOdds ratioLogistic regressionApixabanRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEmergency medicineAtrial fibrillationPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Over the past few years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been gradually replacing warfarin. Inappropriate prescribing of DOACs in real-life practice settings can affect their perceived safety and efficacy, especially with the lack of a surrogate marker for guidance. OBJECTIVES: To describe the appropriateness of DOACs prescribing, compare dabigatran to rivaroxaban in terms of inappropriate prescribing, and determine other factors associated with inappropriate DOACs use. METHODS: In this cross-sectional retrospective study, 5-year DOAC prescriptions data were extracted. Appropriateness was evaluated based on approved dosing and indications in Canada and the United States. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2015, there were 1049 DOACs prescriptions, among which 572 (54.5%) were for dabigatran and 477(45.5%) were for rivaroxaban. The DOACs were prescribed for inappropriate indication in 35 (3.3%) patients, while inappropriate dosing was found in 352 (33.6%) prescriptions. There were significantly more inappropriate dabigatran prescriptions compared to rivaroxaban both in terms of indication (4.7% vs 1.7%, P = .004) and dosing (50.9% vs 12.8%, P < .001). Logistic regression analysis confirmed that dabigatran prescribing was the only factor associated with inappropriate indications (odds ratio [OR] = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-6.5). Factors associated with inappropriate dosing included dabigatran prescriptions (OR = 7.6, 95% CI: 5.5-10.5) and poor renal function (OR = 14.6, 95% CI: 3.6-58.4). CONCLUSION: Direct oral anticoagulants have been gradually replacing warfarin in Qatar; however, they are not always prescribed appropriately especially in patients on dabigatran and those with renal impairment. Educating health-care practitioners is necessary. Future studies comparing the clinical safety and effectiveness of the DOACs especially when used at an inappropriate dose are also warranted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207