SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials on Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Pediatric Heart Diseases.
Synthesis in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outpatient drug therapy for children with heart disease in Switzerland: a survey.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in pediatric congenital and acquired heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Thrombosis journal · 2026Review
- The use of direct oral anticoagulants in children with congenital and acquired heart disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Intermittent pneumatic compression thromboprophylaxis among critically ill children: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been widely applied in adults for thrombosis prophylaxis. However, the effect of DOACs in pediatric patients with congenital or acquired heart diseases who need anticoagulation therapy remains unclear.
methodsWe systematically searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until June 2024 to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). If the number of included studies was less than 5, we performed a narrative review to assess the effect of DOACs in pediatric patients.
resultsFour studies were included. In the UNIVERSE study, thrombotic events occurred in 2% of the rivaroxaban group and 9% of the aspirin group, with bleeding events in 36% and 41%, respectively. The ENNOBLE-ATE study showed no thromboembolic events in the edoxaban group and 1.7% in the SOC group (rate difference: -0.07%, 95% CI: -0.22 to 0.07%). Major bleeding rates were similar (rate difference: -0.03%, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.12%). The SAXOPHONE trial showed no thromboembolic events in either group and similar major bleeding rates (-0.8%, 95% CI: -8.1 to 3.3%). In the DIVERSITY trial, 81% of dabigatran patients achieved the primary outcome versus 59.3% in the SOC group (Odds ratio: 0.342, 95% CI: 0.081-1.229). No major bleeding occurred in either group.
conclusionExisting studies suggest that the use of DOACs hold promise as an effective and safe alternative for preventing and treating thromboembolism in pediatric patients with heart conditions.
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.