ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2019
Safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus traditional anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of pharmacist-conducted anticoagulation patient education and telephone follow-up on transitions of care: a randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Chemical Synthesis and Biochemical Evaluation of Decasulfated Galloylglucopyranose Heparin Mimetic.Cardiovascular & hematological agents in medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Does direct oral anticoagulant lead-in dosing following initial parenteral therapy affect clinical outcomes in acute venous thromboembolism?: A retrospective cohort study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Article
- Therapeutic Approaches for COVID-19: A Review of Antiviral Treatments, Immunotherapies, and Emerging Interventions.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Review
- Network pharmacology analysis and clinical verification ofBiomedical reports · 2025Article
- Gender-specific relationships between hyperuricemia and idiopathic deep venous thrombosis in the Chinese population: a case‒control study.Thrombosis journal · 2024Article
- Construction and optimization of a polygenic risk model for venous thromboembolism in the Chinese population.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024Article
- A phenome-wide approach to identify causal risk factors for deep vein thrombosis.BMC medical genomics · 2023Article
- Expert Recommendations on the Usage of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) from India: Current Perspective and Future Direction.Cardiology and therapy · 2022Review
- Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: Predictors and outcomes of guideline adherence in a long-term prospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Pharmacokinetics and Biologic Activity of Apixaban in Healthy Dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of apixaban and rivaroxaban in dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For decades, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and vitamin K-antagonists have been the gold standard of anticoagulation for VTE. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that can be administered in fixed doses, without laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment have revolutionized anticoagulation management in VTE. Here, we report on recent evidence regarding the safety of DOACs compared to traditional anticoagulants in surgical and medical prophylaxis as well as in acute and extended treatments of VTE. Additionally, we provide data on special situations such as elderly, cancer and renal impairment patients. Regarding antithrombotic prophylaxis, data are lacking on DOAC use in general surgical patients, while DOACs appear to be more effective than and as safe as LMWHs in VTE prophylaxis for major orthopedic surgical patients. Whether a medically ill patient may benefit from extended VTE prophylaxis remains unclear. In fact, in these patients, DOACs showed an increased risk of bleeding compared to conventional therapy. In the acute treatment of VTE, DOACs were non-inferior and probably safer than conventional anticoagulation therapy while in the extended VTE treatment DOACs were more effective than placebo or aspirin with a comparable risk of major bleeding. These favorable results were also confirmed in elderly, cancer and renal impairment patients. However, further investigations are needed in order to generalize the safe use of DOACs in these specific subgroups of patients.
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.