SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012
Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: direct and adjusted indirect meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 15 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Factor Xa inhibitor for venous thromboembolism management in patient with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.Blood advances · 2020Guideline
- Comparison of treatment effect estimates of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin between observational studies using propensity score methods and randomized controlled trials.European journal of epidemiology · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- New oral anticoagulants for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: are they safer than vitamin K antagonists? A meta-analysis of the interventional trials.Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Indirect comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparative coronary risks of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Pooled it
- Dabigatran etexilate and risk of myocardial infarction, other cardiovascular events, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2014Pooled it
- Comparisons between novel oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in patients with CKD.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2014Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety outcomes of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs in the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Andexanet Alfa-Associated Heparin Resistance in Cardiac Surgery: Mechanism and In Vitro Perspectives.Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2025Article
- Trends in prescribing and outcomes in obese versus non-obese patients receiving rivaroxaban therapy: an observational study using real-world data.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Observational
- Iliocaval Reconstruction: Review of Technique, Challenges, and Outcomes.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2022Review
- The Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Among Older Individuals With Acute Venous Thromboembolism and CKD: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Kidney medicine · 2022Article
- Risk of postpolypectomy bleeding in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants or clopidogrel.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo critically review the effectiveness of the novel oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, ximelagatran, and apixaban) in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism.
designSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis. Data were extracted independently by two investigators. An adjusted indirect comparison was performed to compare between novel oral anticoagulants. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to April 2012). Hand searching of relevant scientific works and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of novel oral anticoagulants compared with vitamin K antagonists for acute venous thromboembolism. Selected outcomes were recurrent events, major bleeding, and all cause mortality.
resultsNine studies met our inclusion criteria, involving 16,701 patients evaluated for efficacy and 16,611 for safety. Data were stratified according to different novel oral anticoagulants. For recurrent acute venous thromboembolism, there were no significant differences in events rates between any of the anticoagulants and conventional treatment (rivaroxaban (four studies): relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.31; dabigatran (two studies): 1.09, 0.76 to 1.57; ximelagatran (two studies): 1.06, 0.62 to 1.80; and apixaban (one study): 0.98, 0.20 to 4.79). Rivaroxaban reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with conventional treatment (0.57, 0.39 to 0.84), whereas other novel oral anticoagulants did not (0.76 (0.49 to 1.18) for dabigatran; 0.54 (0.28 to 1.03) for ximelagatran; 2.95 (0.12 to 71.82) for apixaban). For all cause mortality there were no significant differences between the novel oral anticoagulants and conventional treatment (0.96 (0.72 to 1.27) for rivaroxaban; 1.00 (0.67 to 1.50) for dabigatran; 0.67 (0.42 to 1.08) for ximelagatran; 6.89 (0.36 to 132.06) for apixaban). The adjusted indirect comparison between rivaroxaban and dabigatran did not show superiority of either drug over the others for major bleeding (0.75, 0.41 to 1.34) or the other endpoints.
conclusionsCompared with vitamin K antagonists, the novel oral anticoagulants had a similar risk of recurrence of acute venous thromboembolism and all cause mortality, though rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced risk of bleeding.
Indexed as
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.