ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Direct versus conventional anticoagulants for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis: a pooled and interaction analysis between observational studies and randomized clinical trials.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Net clinical benefit of DOACs vs. usual anticoagulation treatment in venous thromboembolism and active cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Pooled it
- Net Clinical Benefit of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Cancer and Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Trade-Off Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and low-molecular-weight heparin in Chinese lung cancer patients with nonhigh-risk pulmonary embolism.Thrombosis journal · 2023Article
- Current status of treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.Thrombosis journal · 2021Review
- Thrombotic risk in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients: a single-center experience.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are emerging observational studies (OSs) to assess real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). We conducted a pooled and interaction analysis to compare the treatment effect estimates of DOACs between OSs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsWe systematically searched PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for OSs and RCTs that reported recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and/or major bleeding events in CAT patients receiving DOACs and conventional anticoagulants [warfarin or low molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs)]. Relative risks (RRs) for OSs and RCTs were calculated using random-effects models separately, and interaction analyses were afterward applied to assess the comparability between OSs and RCTs.
resultsBaseline characteristic was comparable between identified 10 OSs (35,142 patients) and 8 RCTs (2,602 patients). Overall, no significant difference of treatment effect estimates between OSs and RCTs was detected (P
conclusionsIn this study, effectiveness and safety of DOACs versus conventional anticoagulants in CAT from OSs are in agreement with those from RCTs, confirming a low risk of recurrent VTE and similar risk of major bleeding in CAT patients receiving DOACs.
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.