ReviewBiomedicines2025
Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in the Management of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis-Where Do We Stand?
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 4,929 Patients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVT) is a rare cause of stroke, constituting 0.5-3% of all strokes with an extremely varied spectrum of presentation, predisposing factors, neuroimaging findings, and eventual outcomes. A high index of suspicion is needed because timely diagnosis can significantly alter the natural course of the disease, reduce acute complications, and improve long-term outcomes. Due to its myriad causative factors, protean presentation, and association with several systemic diseases, CVT is encountered not only by neurologists but also by emergency care practitioners, internists, hematologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians. DISCUSSION: Anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment for CVT. Heparin and warfarin previously had been the anticoagulation of choice. Recently there has been an increased interest in utilizing direct-acting oral anticoagulants in the treatment of CVT given comparable safety and efficacy with ease of utilization. However recent clinical guidelines given by multiple societies including the American Stroke guidelines and European guidelines do not include these agents so far in their treatment recommendations. Ongoing multicentric clinical trials are currently reviewing the role of these agents in both short-term as well as long-term. Our review of the literature supports the safety and reinforces the efficacy of DOAC in the treatment of CVT. Additionally, patient satisfaction has been shown to be better with the use of DOAC. In conclusion, DOAC continues to have a valid role in the management of CVT.
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.