SynthesisScience progress
Rivaroxaban for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.
Synthesis in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Eight Antithrombotic Regimens for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Reassessing Revascularization Strategies in Coronary Artery Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Non-embolic outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease and atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Article
- Traditional Chinese Medicine Intervenes Ventricular Remodeling Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Evidence From 40 Random Controlled Trials With 3,659 Subjects.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
All cancers can increase the risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and anticoagulants should be considered as an optimal treatment for patients suffering from cancer-associated VTE. However, there is still a debate about whether the new oral anticoagulant, rivaroxaban, can bring better efficacy and safety outcomes globally. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant published papers before 1 September 2019, with no language restrictions. The primary outcomes are defined as the recurrence of VTE. The secondary outcomes are defined as clinically relevant non-major bleeding, adverse major bleeding events, and all-cause of death. The data were analyzed by Stata with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Four trials encompassing 1996 patients were included. Rivaroxaban reduced recurrent VTE with no significant difference (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.43-1.07). Similarly, there were no significant differences in adverse major bleeding events (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.37-2.00), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.73-2.12) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.40-1.44). In a selected study population of cancer patients with VTE, rivaroxaban is as good as other anticoagulants. Further, carefully designed randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these results.
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.