SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022
Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cutting Through the Clot: Rethinking Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Plastic Surgery with Aspirin, Direct Oral Anticoagulants, and Low Molecular Weight Heparin.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of extended duration pharmacological thromboprophylaxis on venous thromboembolism after hip and knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Pooled it
- Tranexamic acid in radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the Effects of Dairy and Soybean on Bone Health in Women: A Food- and Component-Level Network Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- What can we learn from network meta-analyses published in top medical journals.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in humans exposed to microgravity: A hybrid systematic and narrative review.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Revisiting low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism: from pharmacology to precision dosing and implementation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Utility of the Caprini risk assessment model in guiding venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after abdominoplasty.JPRAS open · 2025Article
- Venous Thromboembolism in Inherited Platelet Disorders: A Clinical Challenge.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Prophylactic direct oral anticoagulants vs. low molecular weight heparin after urological surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Arab journal of urology · 2025Review
- Overview of Venous Thromboembolism and Emerging Therapeutic Technologies Based on Nanocarriers-Mediated Drug Delivery Systems.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Timing of Major Postoperative Bleeding Among Patients Undergoing Surgery.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Global practice variation in pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for general and gynaecological surgery: systematic review.BJS open · 2022Article
- Venous Thromboembolism Risk and Adherence to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients in Uruguay: First Nationwide Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. REVIEW
methodsRandomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.
results68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).
conclusionsDirect oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106181.
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.