ReviewVascular health and risk management2016
Considerations for long-term anticoagulant therapy in patients with venous thromboembolism in the novel oral anticoagulant era.
Review in Vascular health and risk management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Neurology international · 2025Review
- Current Evidence and Expert Opinion on Thromboprophylaxis After Total Knee and Hip Replacement.Cureus · 2023Review
- Article
- Development of a carotid artery thrombolysis stroke model in mice.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Impact of functional status on 6-month mortality in elderly patients with acute venous thromboembolism: results from a prospective cohort.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2018Observational
- Venous Thromboembolism - Current Diagnostic and Treatment Modalities.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2016Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients who have had a venous thromboembolic event are generally advised to receive anticoagulant treatment for 3 months or longer to prevent a recurrent episode. Current guidelines recommend initial heparin and an oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for long-term anticoagulation. However, because of the well-described disadvantages of VKAs, including extensive food and drug interactions and the need for regular anticoagulation monitoring, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have become an attractive option in recent years. These agents are given at fixed doses and do not require routine coagulation-time monitoring. The NOACs are discussed in this review with regard to the needs of patients on long-term anticoagulation.
methodsCurrent guidelines from Europe and North America that refer to the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism are included, as well as published randomized Phase III clinical trials of NOACs. PubMed searches were used for sourcing case studies of long-term anticoagulant treatment, and results were filtered for human application and screened for relevance.
conclusionNOAC-based therapy showed a similar efficacy and safety profile to heparins/VKAs but without the need for regular anticoagulation monitoring or dietary adjustments, and can be taken as a fixed-dose regimen once or twice daily. This represents a significant step forward in facilitating the management of long-term anticoagulation therapy. Furthermore, in the EINSTEIN studies, improved patient satisfaction was documented with the NOAC rivaroxaban, which may result in better adherence to therapy and an overall reduction in the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism.
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.