SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Tinzaparin for Long-Term Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis · 2018Pooled it
- Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Adjuvant chemotherapy in curatively resected rectal cancer: How valid are the data?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020Article
- Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2020Article
- The coagulome and the oncomir: impact of cancer-associated haemostatic dysregulation on the risk of metastasis.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2018Review
- Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with solid brain neoplasms: results of a survey among Italian physicians.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Validity of studies suggesting postsurgical chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: critical appraisal of randomised trials.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2017Article
- The safety of low-molecular-weight heparins in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgically-treated cancer patients: results of a multicentre observational study.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2017Article
- Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer: Focus on Drug Therapy.Drugs · 2016Review
- L-asparaginase and venous thromboembolism in acute lymphocytic leukemia.Future oncology (London, England) · 2015Review
- Review
- Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: the Saudi clinical practice guideline.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.
objectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. SEARCH
methodsA comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form, review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodologic quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. MAIN
resultsOf 9559 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH with UFH, two compared fondaparinux with heparin, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow-up with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodologic quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63), or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73). AUTHORS'
conclusionsLMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.
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.