ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2021
Thrombophilia testing in the era of direct oral anticoagulants.
Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk factors and incidence of central venous access device-related thrombosis in hospitalized children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric research · 2024Pooled it
- Management of patients with protein s deficiency: focus on clinical course and direct oral anticoagulants.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Etiology and Risk Factors for Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis in Non-Cirrhotic, Non-Neoplastic Patients: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- The Etiology of the Thrombotic Phenomena Involved in the Process of Coronary Artery Disease-What Is the Role of Thrombophilic Genes in the Development of This Pathology?International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Stroke Thrombectomy and Right Atrial Clot Aspiration in 29 Year Old Woman.The Neurohospitalist · 2024Article
- Comparing the Effect of DOAC-StopBritish journal of biomedical science · 2024Article
- The methods for removal of direct oral anticoagulants and heparins to improve the monitoring of hemostasis: a narrative literature review.Thrombosis journal · 2023Review
- Lupus anticoagulant testing during anticoagulation, including direct oral anticoagulants.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Review
- Antithrombin Therapy: Current State and Future Outlook.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly recognised in primary and secondary care practice. The arrival of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has made the management of VTE easier and more convenient. Some patients established on DOACs may need screening for underlying thrombophilias as certain thrombophilic conditions are known to confer a higher thrombosis risk, although the guidelines for when and how to test for a thrombophilia, especially in a patient taking a DOAC, are unclear. This literature review aims to examine when thrombophilia screening should take place in a patient already taking a DOAC, the effect of DOACs on thrombophilia tests, and analyse whether DOACs are safe and effective in both inherited and acquired thrombophilias.
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.