SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2020
Direct oral anticoagulants more effective than low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thrombo-embolism in cancer: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention of cancer associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Low-Molecular Weight Heparin for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis in a Thai University-Affiliated Hospital.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Trends and Predictors of Venous Thromboembolism and Major Hemorrhagic Events in Hospitalized Leukemia Patients: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the NIS (2016-2020).Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Anticoagulants in Patients With Cancer-Associated Thrombosis.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Current status of treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.Thrombosis journal · 2021Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the recent past, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the first choice in the treatment of cancer related venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Evidence supporting the preferential use of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer, instead, is less robust so far. We therefore aimed to assess in an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials whether the use of DOACs may be associated with a more favorable profile when compared to LMWH. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs enrolling patients with VTE and cancer. We assessed Mantel-Haenszel pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for recurrence of VTE, major bleeding, and mortality comparing subjects treated with DOACs with those with LMWH. After study selection, three RCTs (HOKUSAI-Cancer, SELECT-D and ADAM-VTE) were included for the analysis with an overall population of 1739 patients. DOACs patients had a lower incidence of 6-month recurrent VTE when compared to LMWHs (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.79; p < 0.001). Incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between DOACs and LMWH treated patients (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.95-2.47, p = n.s.), and mortality rates were comparable (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91-2.47, p = n.s.). In a meta-analysis of RCTs therapy with DOACs was superior to LMWH in terms of efficacy and lower recurrence of VTE with a comparable safety profile in terms of bleeding events and complications.
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.