ReviewVisceral medicine2020
Paraneoplastic Thromboembolism and Thrombophilia: Significance in Visceral Medicine.
Review in Visceral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Embolic occlusions of the right hand: an interdisciplinary challenge].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a prediction model for VTE risk in gastric and esophageal cancer patients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Review
- Floating thrombus of the ascending aorta after treatment of ureteral carcinoma: A case report.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2022Article
- Coagulation Disorders: Manifestations in the Gastrointestinal Tract.Visceral medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) are frequent complications of cancer. Risk assessment models (RAM) for stratification of the thrombotic risk in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer have several limitations. SUMMARY: While pancreatic and stomach cancer are considered very high risk in all RAM, the risk of colorectal cancer differs between RAM, and esophageal cancer and cholangiocarcinoma were underrepresented or not included in any RAM. In addition, up to 49% of patients with pancreatic cancer develop splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT). Prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) in ambulatory cancer patients is associated with a positive risk-benefit ratio only in high-risk patients and LMWH have been the standard of care for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE and SVT over the last years. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been shown to be equally effective compared to LMWH, but bleedings from the GI tract are more frequent. Therefore, recent guidelines suggest the use of DOAC for VTE treatment and for prophylaxis in ambulatory patients at high risk for VTE, but patients at high risk for bleeding, especially with active luminal cancer, should receive LMWH. KEY MESSAGES: This review discusses RAM and the current options for prophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated ATE, VTE, and SVT focusing on GI cancers.
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.