SynthesisMedscape journal of medicine2009
A systematic review of Cochrane anticoagulation reviews.
Synthesis in Medscape journal of medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antithrombotic efficacy and bleeding risks of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia treatments.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Diet as prophylaxis and treatment for venous thromboembolism?Theoretical biology & medical modelling · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextI coauthored a published review of anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and published a review on the same topic in MedGenMed (now the Medscape Journal of Medicine). In contrast to the article in Medscape, the discussion and conclusions in the Cochrane review were altered appreciably during the review process. Consequently, I decided to critique all anticoagulation drug-related reviews and protocols in the Cochrane database with feedback letters concerning any issues of potential controversy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using key words in the search engine of the Cochrane Reviews, I located reviews and protocols involving anticoagulant drugs. I critiqued each anticoagulation review and protocol and sent a total of 57 feedback letters to Cochrane concerning each publication to elicit a response/rebuttal from the authors. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Cochrane anticoagulation review editors acknowledged receipt of all letters. As of 12 months after receipt of my last letter, the Cochrane authors have replied to 13 of the 57 and agreed with many of my points. Two protocols were withdrawn after my feedback letters were acknowledged. The 58 Cochrane anticoagulation drug reviews, including mine, contained 9 categories of methodological errors (207 total instances) and 4 types of biases (18 total instances). This review of those Cochrane reviews suggests that the effectiveness of anticoagulants for 30 medical indications is questionable.
conclusionsThe efficacy of anticoagulants for treatment and prophylaxis for 30 current medical indications should be reconsidered by the scientific community and medical regulatory agencies. At least 50,000 people per year worldwide have fatal bleeding due to anticoagulant treatment or prophylaxis for these indications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19295926PMC2654677What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.