ArticleBMC neurology2021
Rivaroxaban for the treatment of cerebral venous thrombosis.
Article in BMC neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Different Anticoagulants in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Guideline
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 4,929 Patients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Neurology international · 2025Review
- Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in the Management of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis-Where Do We Stand?Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in the treatment of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2024Article
- Cerebral Vein Thrombosis and Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Effectiveness of rivaroxaban in preventing cerebral venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Direct oral anticoagulants compared to warfarin in long-term management of cerebral venous thrombosis: A comprehensive meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis as the initial presentation of essential thrombocythemia - A case report and literature review.eNeurologicalSci · 2022Article
- Comparison of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis - A Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
- [Diagnostic and treatment recommendations from the FACME ad-hoc expert working group on the management of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with COVID-19 vaccination].Neurologia (Barcelona, Spain)Article
- Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Rivaroxaban for the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in a Chinese Population.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) such as Rivaroxaban are introduced as alternatives to conventional vitamin-K antagonists in the long-term treatment of thrombotic events due to their lower bleeding risk. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness and safety of Rivaroxaban in Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). This study aims to assess the effectiveness and bleeding risk of Rivaroxaban in comparison with Warfarin for the treatment of CVT. MATERIALS AND
methods36 patients with diagnosis of CVT were included. Clinical and background information was assessed on admission and patients were followed for at least 12 months. Measured outcomes were modified Rankin Scale (mRS), evidence of recanalization on contrast-enhanced Brain MR venography (MRV) and major or minor bleeding. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of oral anticoagulant (Rivaroxaban vs Warfarin). Groups were compared in terms of final outcomes and side effects.
resultOverall, 13 (36.11%) patients received Warfarin and 23 (63.89%) received Rivaroxaban. Optimal mRS score (0-1) was attained in 9 of 10 (90%) of patients treated with Rivaroxaban and 19 of 22 (86.36%) of patients received Warfarin. MRV showed complete or partial recanalization in 12 of 14 (85.71%) patients treated with Rivaroxaban and all patients in the Warfarin group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major and minor hemorrhage.
conclusionRivaroxaban holds promise for the treatment of CVT.
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.