ArticleMedicine2018
Efficacy and risks of anticoagulation for cerebral venous thrombosis.
Article in Medicine, 2018. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unraveling the Clinical Puzzle of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in Ulcerative Colitis: Insights from a Systematic Review.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2026Review
- Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis Revealing ALK-Positive Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma in a Patient with Inherited Thrombophilia and Concomitant Infection: Case Report and Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cerebral Veins and Dural Sinuses Thrombosis: Data from a Monocentric Cohort Study of 55 Romanian Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cerebral Venous Thrombosis:Current Status and Challenges.Brain and behavior · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of rivaroxaban in preventing cerebral venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeCerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare but life-threatening disease. Timely and proper treatments are the keys in saving patients' life and preventing from permanent neurological deficits. We performed this network meta-analysis to evaluate the role of anticoagulation in CVT, especially for the patients accompanied with hemorrhagic stroke.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Chinese Biomedical (CBM) databases were searched comprehensively to select eligible articles (up to 30 June 2017). Network meta-analysis was performed based on classical frequency statistics.
resultsAround 14 studies comprising 1135 cases were included. Overall analysis showed that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) were more effective (LMWH vs placebo: OR 4.76, 95%CI: 2.56-8.33; UFH vs placebo: OR 4.12, 95%CI: 2.17-8.33), and safe (LMWH vs placebo: OR 0.22, 95%CI: 0.069-0.65; UFH vs placebo: OR 0.28, 95%CI: 0.058-0.99) than placebo in the management of CVT. Besides, LMWH showed more advantages than UFH; As for the patients accompanied with hemorrhagic stroke, LMWH and UFH were also better than placebo (efficacy: LMWH vs placebo: OR 20, 95%CI: 5.56-100; UFH vs placebo: OR 12.5, 95%CI: 3.7-33.3; safety: LMWH vs placebo: OR 0.18, 95%CI: 0.04-0.77; UFH vs placebo: OR 0.16, 95%CI: 0.04-0.6) in the management of CVT. In addition, LMWH was more effective than UFH for the patients accompanied with hemorrhagic stroke.
conclusionAnticoagulant treatment with heparin is safe and beneficial for patients with CVT, even for those accompanied with hemorrhagic stroke. Besides, LMWH is better than UFH in the management of CVT.
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.