ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2015
Pros and cons of new oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in patients with extremes in bodyweight.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Review
- Factor XI, a potential target for anticoagulation therapy for venous thromboembolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Factor XIIIa inhibitors as potential novel drugs for venous thromboembolism.European journal of medicinal chemistry · 2020Review
- Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism as an alternative to low-molecular-weight-heparin.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Article
- Recent advances in the discovery and development of factor XI/XIa inhibitors.Medicinal research reviews · 2018Review
- Structure of Coagulation Factor II: Molecular Mechanism of Thrombin Generation and Development of Next-Generation Anticoagulants.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Review
- Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism using apixaban - patient perspectives and considerations. Should more attention be given to females?Patient preference and adherence · 2016Review
- Article
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Active Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with cancer account for 20 % of cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cancer patients are at increased risk for VTE during the entire course of their disease, also in absence of traditional VTE risk factors. Furthermore, patients with VTE and cancer have an estimated risk of bleeding of 15-20 % per year while on anticoagulant treatment. For these reasons, treatment of acute VTE in patients with cancer remains a clinical challenge. In clinical studies, which included about 27,000 patients, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been shown to be as effective and safe as conventional anticoagulation (heparin given with and followed by vitamin K antagonists) for the treatment of VTE. In these studies, 1227 patients with active cancer were enrolled. Preliminary results of subgroup analyses and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials suggest that NOACs could represent an alternative to conventional anticoagulation in patients with active cancer. Further "ad hoc" studies evaluating the clinical benefit of treatment with NOACs in patients with VTE and cancer are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25840679What 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.