SynthesisPediatric research2023
Direct oral anticoagulants versus standard anticoagulation in children treated for acute venous thromboembolism.
Synthesis in Pediatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of antithrombotic therapy for preventing and treating pediatric thromboembolic disease: a systematic review.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults. Little attention is given to pediatric VTE (PVTE). The objective of this study is to study the efficacy and safety of DOACs in published PVTE randomized control trials (RCTs). PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Cochrane Library, SinoMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until 2021, to identify RCTs that enrolled patients with VTE <18 years of age who received DOACs versus standard anticoagulation. Outcomes were evaluated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of random-effects model. Our study evaluated seven RCTs that included 1139 cases of PVTE, which had a low risk of publication and assessment bias. Compared with standard anticoagulation, patients receiving DOACs presented a lower rate of recurrent VTE (relative risk [RR], 0.42 [confidence interval {CI}, 0.20 to 0.89]), similar mortality rate (RR, 0.50 [CI, 0.07 to 3.57]), major bleeding (RR, 0.46 [CI, 0.14 to 1.57]), and higher clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (RR, 2.71 [CI, 1.05 to 7.02]) with low heterogeneity. Limiting to subgroups, dabigatran and rivaroxaban yielded similar findings, except for a higher incidence of nonmajor bleeding during rivaroxaban use. DOACs could be an alternative to standard anticoagulation in PVTE. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have similar effects. IMPACT: In venous thromboembolism (VTE), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used as a substitution for standard anticoagulation in most situations for adults; however, little attention is paid to the pediatric population. For pediatric VTE, previous meta-analyses have emphasized the epidemiology, risk factors, and the use of traditional anticoagulants, and seldom reported the use of novel oral anticoagulants. This is the first meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that focuses on the efficacy outcomes and safety endpoints of DOACs compared with standard anticoagulation in pediatric VTE.
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.