Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30244595›Full record

SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis2018

Anticoagulation for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Diana M Sobieraj, William L Baker, Eni Smith, Katarzyna Sasiela, Stephanie E Trexler, Oliver Kim, Craig I Coleman

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Diana M SobierajDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.
William L BakerDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.
Eni SmithGriffin Hospital, Derby, CT, USA.
Katarzyna SasielaDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.
Stephanie E TrexlerDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.
Oliver KimDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.
Craig I ColemanDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4868-7158
University of Connecticut · USGriffin Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference abstracts through March 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults with CAT comparing 2 or more full-dose anticoagulants (LMWH, VKA, and DOAC) and evaluating recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and/or all-cause mortality were included. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence in duplicate. A frequentist network meta-analysis, which uses direct and indirect evidence to simultaneously compare multiple interventions, was performed using a random-effects approach. Results are reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 13 RCTs (n = 6292): 7 compared LMWHs with VKAs, 4 compared DOACs with VKAs, and 2 compared DOACs with LMWHs. The risk of recurrent VTE was significantly reduced by 28% and 54% with a DOAC compared to an LMWH and a VKA, respectively. Low-molecular-weight heparins significantly reduced the risk of recurrent VTE by 36% versus VKAs. The risk of major bleeding was 14% higher with DOACs compared to LMWHs and 15% and 25% lower with DOACs and LMWHs versus VKAs, although 95% CIs included unity for each. The risk of all-cause mortality appeared similar for all 3 comparisons (RR = 1.0 for each comparison). Direct-acting oral anticoagulants appeared superior in reducing recurrent VTE in patients with CAT compared to LMWH and VKAs, but an increased risk of major bleeding versus LMWH cannot be ruled out.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnticoagulantsHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicThrombosisVitamin KAnticoagulantsHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightVitamin Kanticoagulantsbleedingvenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID30244595
PMCPMC6714836
OpenAlexW2892983422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.