ArticleThrombosis journal2025
Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in nephrotic syndrome patients: a retrospective study.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Standard Anticoagulation for Thromboprophylaxis in Nephrotic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Challenges and Opportunities of Direct Oral Anticoagulant (DOAC) Therapy in Complex Clinical Scenarios: A Comprehensive Review and Practical Guide.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Type of Preoperative Oral Antithrombotics as a Risk Factor for Venous Thromboembolism After Hip Surgery: A Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNephrotic syndrome (NS) is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants are widely used in the prevention of VTE in NS patients. The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has not been studied intensively in NS patients. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared to warfarin for prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with nephrotic syndrome.
methodsRetrospective analysis conducted in a tertiary hospital-based ambulatory anticoagulation clinic between 01/07/2016 and 29/11/2021. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of VTE, major bleeding, and non-major bleeding in both the DOACs and warfarin groups.
resultsFifty-seven patients were recruited, 31 patients were prescribed warfarin (54.4%), and 26 were on DOAC (45.6%). Two patients in the DOAC group developed VTE, while no subjects in the warfarin group developed VTE, however, the difference was not statistically significance (p = 0.2). Nine out of 31 patients in the warfarin group developed non-major bleeding compared to three patients in the DOAC group (p = 0.02). One patient developed major bleeding in each group DOAC group 1 (15.4%), warfarin 1 (12.9%) (p = 1.00). There was no statistically significant difference in major bleeding between DOAC and warfarin groups (p = 1.00).
conclusionIn patients with NS, preliminary evidence suggests that DOACs have comparable efficacy as compared to warfarin when used as prophylaxis. Additionally, DOACs result in lower incidences of non-major bleeding. However, further studies are indicated to confirm the superiority of DOACs over warfarin.
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.