ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2023
Anticoagulation medication in nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage survivors with atrial fibrillation.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current evidence and future directions for prophylactic anticoagulation therapy after severe spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a narrative review.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Drug and Device Strategies for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Continuous Blood Pressure Indices During the First 72 Hours and Functional Outcome in Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Neurocritical care · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relative effectiveness of anticoagulation agents in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who survive an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is unknown. This study was performed to examine the comparative effectiveness of different oral anticoagulation (OAC) on clinical outcomes in this group of patients.
methodsWe performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing different OAC (direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC] and warfarin) for the treatment of patients with AF who sustained ICH. Outcomes included repeat ICH, thromboembolic events, and all-cause mortality. The values derived from the surface under the cumulative ranking curve were obtained to rank the treatment hierarchy.
resultsWe identified 12 studies (two RCTs and ten observational studies) involving 23,265 patients; 346 patients were treated with any OAC agents; 5,006 received DOAC; 5,271 received warfarin; 12,007 received antiplatelet or no therapy, and 635 did not received relevant therapy. Both DOAC and warfarin (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) were superior to antiplatelet or no therapy in preventing thromboembolic events. Moreover, DOAC also showed superiority in preventing thromboembolic events (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83), repeat ICH (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.67), and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.56) than warfarin.
conclusionsOur study suggests DOACs may be a reasonable alternative to anti-platelet therapy and warfarin for patients with AF who experienced ICH. However, given the available evidence is primarily observational, further validation by ongoing trials directly comparing these two classes of drugs are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.