MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366983407 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-071907

Oral anticoagulant switching in patients with atrial fibrillation: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4366983407 on OpenAlexafffund
Adenike Adelakun, Ricky D. Turgeon, Mary A. De Vera, Kimberlyn McGrail, Peter Loewen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineApixabanVitamin K antagonistDabigatranAtrial fibrillationWarfarinStroke (engine)Internal medicineRivaroxaban

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Oral anticoagulants (OACs) prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Several factors may cause OAC switching. OBJECTIVES: To examine the phenomenon of OAC switching in patients with AF, including all available evidence; frequency and patterns of switch, clinical outcomes, adherence, patient-reported outcomes, reasons for switch, factors associated with switch and evidence gaps. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, up to January 2022. RESULTS: Of the 116 included studies, 2/3 examined vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to direct-acting OAC (DOAC) switching. Overall, OAC switching was common and the definition of an OAC switch varied across. Switching from VKA to dabigatran was the most prevalent switch type, but VKA to apixaban has increased in recent years. Patients on DOAC switched more to warfarin than to other DOACs. OAC doses involved in the switches were hardly reported and patients were often censored after the first switch. Switching back to a previously taken OAC (frequently warfarin) occurred in 5%-21% of switchers.The risk of ischaemic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding in VKA to DOAC switchers compared with non-switchers was conflicting, while there was no difference in the risk of other types of bleeding. The risk of ischaemic stroke in switchers from DOAC versus non-switchers was conflicting. Studies evaluating adherence found no significant changes in adherence after switching from VKA to DOAC, however, an increase in satisfaction with therapy were reported. Reasons for OAC switch, and factors associated with OAC switch were mostly risk factors for stroke and bleeding. Clinical outcomes, adherence and patient-reported outcomes were sparse for switches from DOACs. CONCLUSIONS: OAC switching is common in patients with AF and patients often switch back to an OAC they have previously been on. There are aspects of OAC switching that have received little study, especially in switches from DOACs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→