SynthesisMedicine2020
Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer with direct oral anticoagulants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Anticoagulation on Venous Thromboembolism Primary Prophylaxis in Low- to Intermediate-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Pooled it
- Association between genetic risk and adherence to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet for developing venous thromboembolism.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Evolving Treatment Options for Cancer-Related Venous Thromboembolism.JACC. CardioOncology · 2020Article
- Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in 2020 and Beyond.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Cancer associated thrombosis in everyday practice: perspectives from GARFIELD-VTE.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Observational
- Review
- The Risk Factors of VTE and Survival Prognosis of Patients With Malignant Cancer: Implication for Nursing and Treatment.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with cancer are of a high level risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended as the normal treatment for cancer-associated venous thrombosis. Recently, some studies suggest that patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis can get a good efficacy and safety profile from treating with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with other anticoagulants. However, when it comes to the efficacy of DAOCs in preventing VTE in patient with cancer, the data are limited. Thus, we performed such a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of DOACs in preventing VTE in patient with cancer compared with LMWHs.
methodsMedline/PubMed and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were systematically searched for relevant studies. For each trial, data on VTE, major bleeding, or bleeding were extracted by 2 reviewers independently. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by using Review Manager 5.3 software and the significance was determined by the Z test.
resultsA total of 6 studies with 7185 patients were included in our meta-analysis. DOACs (RR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.34-0.90, I = 31%) had a similar prevention effect of VTE to LMWH (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.37-0.95, I = 59%). DOACs (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.99-2.33, I = 0%) yielded a similar bleeding occurrence rate compared with LMWH (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.07-1.70, I = 35%). DOACs (RR = 1.95, 95% CI: 0.88-4.30, I = 0%) showed a sight higher major bleeding occurrence rate than LMWH (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.88-2.14, I = 0%).
conclusionDOACs show comparable efficacy to LMWH in cancer patients without VTE with a slightly higher major bleeding occurrence rate. DOACs are inclined to be an alternative thromboprophylaxis strategy in cancer patients as they have superiorities compared to traditional anticoagulation agents. Further studies are still demanded as exiting relevant researches are limited.
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.