SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Standard Anticoagulation for Thromboprophylaxis in Nephrotic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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 1 paper.
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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) is used to reduce the risk of thrombosis in patients with nephrotic syndrome (NS), yet the optimal agent remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus standard-of-care (SOC; heparins or cumarins) for thromboprophylaxis in NS. We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDLINE from inception to June 2025. Five cohort studies involving 399 adult patients were included. Pooled analysis indicated that while DOACs were associated with a higher risk of thrombotic events, they demonstrated a superior safety profile by significantly reducing the overall risk of bleeding events. The risk of major bleeding was comparable between the two strategies. These findings underscore the paramount importance of individualized risk-benefit assessment in clinical practice. The current evidence, derived from observational studies, calls for further validation from randomized controlled trials.
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.