SynthesisDrug safety2026
Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer-associated thrombosis is a condition associated with high mortality rates, yet limited evidence exists regarding the safety and effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), focusing on a fixed follow-up period based on clinical practice guideline recommendations.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis over a 6-month follow-up period.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to 30 June, 2025. Recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.
resultsSeven randomized controlled trials and 28 cohort studies were included in our systematic review. After applying the criteria for a 6-month follow-up period, five randomized controlled trials and 16 cohort studies with 49,824 patients were analyzed in the meta-analysis. In randomized controlled trials, DOACs showed a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.87) compared with LMWH, with a non-significant increase in major bleeding (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87-1.88) and no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.18). Cohort studies demonstrated a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76) with DOACs, a non-significant reduction in major bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.07), and a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.72).
conclusionsIn patients with cancer-associated thrombosis, DOACs demonstrated a decrease in recurrent venous thromboembolism without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality. A non-significant increase in the risk of major bleeding was recorded in randomized controlled trials, but not in cohort studies. DOACs may provide greater effectiveness for cancer-associated thrombosis compared with LMWH.
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.