SynthesisScientific reports2020
Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention of cancer associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary national trends in the management of admissions for pulmonary embolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- Challenges and Opportunities of Direct Oral Anticoagulant (DOAC) Therapy in Complex Clinical Scenarios: A Comprehensive Review and Practical Guide.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Generic Dabigatran for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: Real-World Data.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2024Article
- Is It Safe to Resume Direct Oral Anticoagulants upon Discharge after Hip Fracture Surgery? A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- 2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19.The Lancet. Oncology · 2022Review
- Evaluation of Herb-Drug Interaction Between Danshen and Rivaroxaban in Rat and Human Liver Microsomes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Arguments for Using Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cancer-Related Venous Thromboembolism.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Current status of treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.Thrombosis journal · 2021Review
- Intracerebral hemorrhage risk in glioma patients taking direct oral anticoagulants as compared with low molecular weight heparin.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be good alternatives to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). We conducted a meta-analysis of ten randomized clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with CAT. All had study populations composed in entirety or in part of patients with CAT. The primary outcome (efficacy) was recurrent VTE and the secondary outcomes (safety outcomes) included major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and all bleeding (major bleeding + CRNMB). Participants treated with DOACs had lower risk of recurrent VTE, overall (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.79; p < 0.0001), compared to LMWH (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.83; p = 0.003), but not compared to VKA (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.44-1.06; p = 0.09). Compared to LMWH, DOACs showed no difference in major bleeding risk (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.78-2.18; p = 0.31), though had higher risk of CRNMB (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.13-2.26; p = 0.008) and all bleeding (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.10-2.01; p = 0.010). These results indicate that DOACs are more effective than LMWH for prevention of recurrent VTE with CAT though carry an increased risk for non-major bleeding compared to standard of care, LMWH.
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.