Key result
This document is a journal masthead and contains no clinical study data.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Editorial
Editorial discussing the terminology of DOACs versus NOACs in the context of a themed journal issue.
In this sixth themed issue of the series of Recent Advances in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, half of the contributions relate to the topic of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We still continue to see manuscripts submitted using the term “novel” anticoagulants. Most of us agree that after 10 years from their first approval, they are not so novel anymore. Some still read out the abbreviation NOAC as “novel oral anticoagulants,” but the current correct spell-out is “non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.” This term and abbreviation have been chosen from the start of this theme series to be the standard (rather than DOAC), thus creating a level of harmonization. Among referring physicians to our Thrombosis Service, I see the two terms used about equally, and anyone is free to use whichever they prefer, but I personally find it annoying to see, for example, within the same PowerPoint presentation the two terms used in a random mix.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sam Schulman (2020) studied this question. This document is a journal masthead and contains no clinical study data.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: