ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2022
Clinical and Safety Outcomes Associated with Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- A Comparison of Outcomes With Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, and Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation and/or Venous Thromboembolism.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants at Reduced Doses in the Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism and Post-Thrombotic Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Exploring the Clinical Efficacy of Venous Thromboembolism Management in Saudi Arabian Hospitals: An Insight into Patient Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany anticoagulant strategies are available for the extended treatment of venous thromboembolism, yet little guidance exists regarding which drug is most effective and safe.
aimA network meta-analysis was performed to resolve this uncertainty.
methodsWe searched the medical literature through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for adults with VTE compared with other anticoagulants or a placebo.
resultsWe identified 13 eligible RCTs in 12 articles. All pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) mentioned below, except that for aspirin, were calculated by comparison with standard-intensity warfarin. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were not inferior to standard-intensity warfarin in preventing recurrence, and edoxaban was ranked first among the NOACs (HR, 0.99; 95% CrI, 0.70-1.39). All the NOACs, except rivaroxaban, were superior to standard-intensity warfarin in preventing bleeding events. Apixaban was ranked first and was considered to be safer than other NOACs for control of both major bleeding (HR = 0.07, 95% CrI: 0.01-0.37) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB, HR = 0.30, 95% CrI: 0.13-0.67). Edoxaban was ranked second among the NOACs for control of major bleeding (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21-0.88), and dabigatran was ranked second among the NOACs for control of CRNMB (HR = 0.54, 95% CrI: 0.4-0.73).
conclusionsThere existed no statistically significant differences in recurrence between NOACs and standard-intensity warfarin, and NOACs were associated with a lower risk of bleeding events. Edoxaban effectively prevented VTE recurrence and major bleeding, and apixaban was the best anticoagulant for controlling bleeding events.
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.