ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Safety and effectiveness of dabigatran vs rivaroxaban in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients at nutritional risk.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malnutrition is a prevalent comorbidity in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), yet comparative evidence on oral anticoagulants in this vulnerable population is scarce. Objectives: We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran with those of rivaroxaban in NVAF patients at nutritional risk. Methods: This new-user, active-comparator cohort study utilized data from the Tianjin Health and Medical Data Platform (2015-2020). We identified 10,658 NVAF patients (dabigatran Results: The incidence of ICH was significantly lower in the dabigatran group compared with the rivaroxaban group (0.55% vs 1.27%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.80). This lower risk was particularly evident in patients receiving low-dose regimens (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.69) and was consistent in short-term analyses. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31), or all-cause mortality (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09). Conclusion: In NVAF patients at nutritional risk, dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of ICH compared with rivaroxaban, without compromising effectiveness.
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.