A Cautionary Note on Data Sources for Evidence-Based Clinical Decisions: Warfarin and Stroke Prevention

Richard Thomson, Martin Eccles, Ruth Wood and David J. Chinn
Additional contact information
Richard Thomson: Public Health Research Group, School of Population and Health Sciences, richard.thomson@newcastle.ac.uk
Martin Eccles: Centre for Health Services Research University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Ruth Wood: Public Health Research Group, School of Population and Health Sciences
David J. Chinn: Public Health Research Group, School of Population and Health Sciences

Medical Decision Making, 2007, vol. 27, issue 4, 438-447

Abstract: Background. Stroke risk in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation can be reduced by warfarin or aspirin; the choice of therapy requires the assessment of risks and benefits. The authors compared methods of risk assessment and their implications for risk communication and treatment. Methods. Stroke risk was compared in 193 patients with atrial fibrillation using the Framingham equation; an atrial fibrillation—specific Framingham equation; the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age, Diabetes and Stroke (CHADS 2 ) score; the Stroke Prevention and Atrial Fibrillation (SPAF) scheme; and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines. Treatment guidance from SIGN, a simple prediction rule, and a decision analytical approach was compared. In the latter, patients were classified as risk too low to benefit from warfarin if the risk of cerebral bleeding on warfarin approximated to, or exceeded, thromboembolic stroke risk reduction. Results. Framingham equations gave lower stroke risks overall than SIGN or SPAF. CHADS 2 was intermediate. Using SIGN, warfarin would be given to all 103 patients without a history of stroke/transient ischemic attack and for whom warfarin was not contraindicated but only to 73 patients using the simple prediction rule and 48 patients using the decision analysis. Conclusion. Community-based cohorts give lower stroke risk estimates than CHADS 2 ; both give lower estimates than schemes from control groups from randomized controlled trials. Using community-derived risks would lead to fewer patients being treated with warfarin than guidance derived from randomized controlled trial controls, which may lead to many low-risk patients being treated with high-risk therapy. This raises the debate about appropriate sources of data for risk assessment to support risk communication and effective clinical decisions.

Keywords: Key words: atrial fibrillation; stroke; risk assessment; decision making; patient preferences. (Med Decis Making 2007:27:438—447) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07302166 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:4:p:438-447

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07302166

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().