Question · asked by 1 review
Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants vs placebo: Rivaroxaban (all doses combined) vs placebo
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants vs placebo Rivaroxaban (all doses combined) vs placebo · adults after AMI without an indication for anticoagulation Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after acute myocardial infarction: a network… (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 21870 participants | High |
Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants vs placebo Rivaroxaban (all doses combined) vs placebo · adults after AMI without an indication for anticoagulation Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after acute myocardial infarction: a network… (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 21870 participants | Moderate |
Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants vs placebo Rivaroxaban (all doses combined) vs placebo · adults after AMI without an indication for anticoagulation Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after acute myocardial infarction: a network… (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 21870 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non‐vitamin‐K‐antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after acute myocardial infarction: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.