Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33005653›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2020

Paraneoplastic Thromboembolism and Thrombophilia: Significance in Visceral Medicine.

Christian Pfrepper

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian PfrepperDivision of Hemostaseology, Medical Department I, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cancer-associated thrombosisDirect oral anticoagulantsGastrointestinal cancerSplanchnic vein thrombosisVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID33005653
PMCPMC7506244
OpenAlexW3043732894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.