↓ Skip to main content

Suboptimal Use of Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: Has the Introduction of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Improved Prescribing Practices?

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Suboptimal Use of Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: Has the Introduction of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Improved Prescribing Practices?
Published in
American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40256-016-0161-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Endalkachew A. Alamneh, Leanne Chalmers, Luke R. Bereznicki

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and the associated risk of stroke are emerging epidemics throughout the world. Suboptimal use of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention has been widely reported from observational studies. In recent years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced for thromboprophylaxis. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate current practices of anticoagulation in AF, pharmacologic features and adoption patterns of DOACs, their impacts on proportion of eligible patients with AF who receive oral anticoagulants, persisting challenges and future prospects for optimal anticoagulation. In conducting this review, we considered the results of relevant prospective and retrospective observational studies from real-world practice settings. PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus (RIS), Google Scholar, EMBASE and Web of Science were used to source relevant literature. There were no date limitations, while language was limited to English. Selection was limited to articles from peer reviewed journals and related to our topic. Most studies identified in this review indicated suboptimal use of anticoagulants is a persisting challenge despite the availability of DOACs. Underuse of oral anticoagulants is apparent particularly in patients with a high risk of stroke. DOAC adoption trends are quite variable, with slow integration into clinical practice reported in most countries; there has been limited impact to date on prescribing practice. Available data from clinical practice suggest that suboptimal oral anticoagulant use in patients with AF and poor compliance with guidelines still remain commonplace despite transition to a new era of anticoagulation featuring DOACs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Slovenia 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 37 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,308,732
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#393
of 425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#337,010
of 400,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.