ArticleBMJ open2023
Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of extracorporeal shockwave therapy, ultrasound therapy, and corticosteroid injections for treatment of lateral epicondylitis: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNovel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been used in antithrombotic therapy in patients with cancer, and their efficacy and safety have been evaluated in several meta-analyses. Although a large body of findings has accumulated to support the benefit of NOACs for the treatment and prevention of cancer-associated thromboembolism, there is no convincing evidence because of inconsistent results across studies and questionable data quality. Its efficacy and safety remain controversial, especially with regard to the risk of bleeding. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, Embase and Web of science, Cochrane Library on 19 April 2022 (searches will be updated until complete) to identify systematic reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses of the efficacy and safety of NOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The quality of eligible systematic evaluations will be measured by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. For each outcome, if a random effects model is not used, we will extract the data and estimate a 95% CI using the random effects model approach. For each random effects estimate, a 95% prediction interval is calculated. Heterogeneity between studies will be quantified using the I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal ethical approval is required since we will use publicly available data. We will disseminate the findings of the umbrella review through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022342053.
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.