ReviewJournal of the American College of Cardiology2019
Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients With Cancer: JACC Review Topic of the Week.
Review in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 7 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
101 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 175 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety evaluation of thromboprophylaxis strategies for central venous catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients: a bayesian network meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Novel Anticoagulants for the Management of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Anticoagulation for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism in cancer patients by primary tumour site: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025Pooled it
- Relevant pharmacologic interactions in the concurrent management of brain tumor-related epilepsy and venous thromboembolism: a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of new oral anticoagulants compared to those of warfarin in AF patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Personalized Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Venous mechanical thrombectomy for deep vein thrombosis in patients with cancer: a single-center prospective study.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2026Article
- Mechanical thrombectomy in cancer-associated pulmonary embolism: reassuring safety, unclear benefit.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with cancer by anticoagulation quality.Cancer · 2026Article
- Coagulation disorders and thromboprophylaxis in pancreatic cancer: a review of current evidence and clinical challenges.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- Hemostasis at the edge between physiology and cancer.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Anticoagulation challenges in cancer patients: prevention, detection, and treatment strategies.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Cancer therapy-associated Takotsubo cardiomyopathy: A narrative review of mechanisms, drug associations, and clinical implications.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Impact of cancer on outcomes following breakthrough ischaemic stroke on oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation: insights from the ASPERA-R study.European stroke journal · 2026Observational
- Thromboembolic disease and hemostatic alterations in tumor-bearing dogs - A narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Risk Factors and Prognostic Significance of Non-Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in Lung Cancer Patients.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke in cancer: the latest scientific evidence, current management, and future directions.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
- Mapping the clinical topography and progression of venous thromboembolism in Chinese breast cancer surgical patients: a prospective longitudinal study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with active cancer are at an increased risk of arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events. Historically, in patients with cancer, low molecular weight heparins have been preferred for treatment of VTE, whereas warfarin has been the standard anticoagulant for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). More recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in large randomized clinical trials of patients with VTE and AF, respectively, thus providing an attractive oral dosing option that does not require routine laboratory monitoring. In this review, we summarize available clinical trial data and guideline recommendations, and outline a practical approach to anticoagulation management of VTE and AF in cancer.
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.