ReviewThrombosis journal2024
Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant for treatment and prophylaxis of VTE patients with renal insufficiency: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Thrombosis journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anticoagulation approaches in hemodialysis: a systematic review of efficacy, safety, and literature gap.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Personalized Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Anticoagulation approach in morbid obesity: a comprehensive review on venous thromboembolism management.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) comorbid renal insufficiency (RI) are at higher risk of bleeding and thrombosis. Recommendations in guidelines on anticoagulation therapy for those patients remain ambiguous. The goal of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between different anticoagulant regimens in VTE patients comorbid RI at different stages of treatment and prophylaxis. We performed English-language searches of Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (inception to Nov 2022). RCTs evaluated anticoagulants for VTE treatment at the acute phase, extension phase, and prophylaxis in patients with RI and reported efficacy and safety outcomes were selected. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed at the outcome level using the risk-of-bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. A meta-analysis of twenty-five RCTs was conducted, comprising data from twenty-three articles, encompassing a total of 9,680 participants with RI. In the acute phase, the risk of bleeding was increased with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to LMWH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.60). For the prophylaxis of VTE, NOACs were associated with an elevated risk of bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.02-1.68). In comparison to non-RI patients, both NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) could increase the risk of bleeding among RI patients (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.14-1.84 and RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.25-1.88, respectively) during acute phase, while NOACs may increase the incidence of VTE in RI population (RR 1.74, 95%CI 1.29-2.34). RI patients who are under routine anticoagulation have a significantly higher risk of adverse outcomes. LMWH is the most effective and safe option for VTE treatment or prophylaxis in patients with RI.
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.