ArticleThrombosis2010
Different Finite Durations of Anticoagulation and Outcomes following Idiopathic Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Thrombosis, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Duration of primary/secondary treatment to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood advances · 2025Pooled it
- Antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention of unprovoked venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of medicine · 2022Pooled it
- American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer.Blood advances · 2021Guideline
- American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.Blood advances · 2020Guideline
- Current Trends in the Duration of Anticoagulant Therapy for Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledIntroduction. Controversy remains over the optimal length of anticoagulation following idiopathic venous thromboembolism. We sought to determine if a longer, finite course of anticoagulation offered additional benefit over a short course in the initial treatment of the first episode of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. Data Extraction. Rates of deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, combined venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality were extracted from prospective trials enrolling patients with first time, idiopathic venous thromboembolism. Data was pooled using random effects meta-regression. Results. Ten trials, with a total of 3225 patients, met inclusion criteria. For each additional month of initial anticoagulation, once therapy was stopped, recurrent venous thromboembolism (0.03 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.35); P = .24), mortality (-0.10 (95% CI: -0.24 to 0.04); P = .15), and major bleeding (-0.01 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.02); P = .44) rates measured in percent per patient years, did not significantly change.
conclusionsPatients with an initial idiopathic venous thromboembolism should be treated with 3 to 6 months of secondary prophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists. At that time, a decision between continuing with indefinite therapy can be made, but there is no benefit to a longer (but finite) course of therapy.
Identifiers
What 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.