ArticlePloS one2019
Extended anticoagulation for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic events: An updated network meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention of unprovoked venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Use of direct oral anticoagulants in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2022Pooled it
- DOAC compared to LMWH in the treatment of cancer related-venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Pooled it
- Management of patients with protein s deficiency: focus on clinical course and direct oral anticoagulants.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Effects on mortality of extended versus short-term anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants at Reduced Doses in the Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism and Post-Thrombotic Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Anticoagulation approach in morbid obesity: a comprehensive review on venous thromboembolism management.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Immunothrombosis and the Role of Platelets in Venous Thromboembolic Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Anticoagulants decrease the risk for catheter-related venous thrombosis in patients with chronic intestinal failure: A long-term cohort study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2022Article
- Extended Anticoagulation After Pulmonary Embolism: A Multicenter Observational Cohort Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Observational
- Glanzmann thrombasthenia complicated by frequent myeloproliferative neoplasm-related thromboembolism: thrombosis occurring regardless of αIIbβIII integrin deficiency.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Venous thrombosis recurrence risk according to warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants for the secondary prevention of venous thrombosis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
- Impact of oral anticoagulant choice for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism on the risk of inpatient bleeding.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
- Predicting Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Deep-Vein Thrombosis: Development and Internal Validation of a Potential New Prediction Model (Continu-8).Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtended treatment is preconized in a significant proportion of patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, limited direct/indirect comparisons are available to appropriately weight the benefit/risk ratio of the diverse treatments available. We aimed to compare the rate of symptomatic recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB), the net clinical benefit (VTE+MB) and death on vitamin-K antagonist (VKA), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and antiplatelet drugs for extended anticoagulation.
methodsA systematic literature search through September 2018 identified randomized trials studying these pharmacologic therapies for extended anticoagulation following VTE. Treatment effects were calculated using network meta-analysis with frequentist fixed-effects model.
results18 trials (18,221 patients) were included in the analysis. All treatments reduced the risk of recurrence compared to placebo/observation. Nonetheless, VKA (RR 0.22; 95%CI 0.13-0.39) and DOAC (RRs ranging from 0.25-0.32; 95%CI ranging from 0.13-0.52) were more effective than aspirin, whereas low-dose VKA was less effective than standard-dose VKA (RR 2.47; 95%CI 1.34-4.55). The efficacy of DOAC was globally comparable to standard-adjusted dose VKA. Low- (RR 3.13; 95%CI 1.37-7.16) and standard-dose (RR 3.23; 95%CI 1.16-8.99) VKA also increased the risk of MB, which was not the case for any DOAC. Low-dose VKA and low-dose DOAC had similar effects on MB compared to standard-doses. Although there was a trend for reduced MB and enhanced net clinical benefit for DOAC compared to VKA, this was not statistically significant. The specific anticoagulant therapies had no significant effects on deaths.
conclusionStandard-dose VKA and low/standard-dose DOAC share similar effects on VTE recurrence and MB, whereas aspirin and low-dose VKA were associated with lower benefit/risk ratio.
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.