ReviewBMC primary care2024
European expert consensus recommendations on the primary care use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism.
Review in BMC primary care, 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Standard Anticoagulation for Thromboprophylaxis in Nephrotic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Chemical Synthesis and Biochemical Evaluation of Decasulfated Galloylglucopyranose Heparin Mimetic.Cardiovascular & hematological agents in medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibitors in Patients With Nephrotic Syndrome: Results From a National Retrospective Study.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism are supported by robust clinical trial evidence. Despite published guidance, general practitioners are faced with increasingly complex decisions and implementation remains sub-optimal in certain real-world scenarios.
methodsA two stage formal consensus exercise was performed to formulate consensus statements and a summary guide, facilitating optimal management of direct oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism patients by generalist physicians across Europe. An online questionnaire distributed to a broad panel (Phase 1), followed by a virtual panel discussion by an expert group (Phase 2) were conducted. Phase 1 statements covered nine management domains, and were developed via a literature review and expert steering committee. Participants rated statements by their level of agreement. Phase 1 responses were collated and analysed prior to discussion and iterative refinement in Phase 2.
resultsIn total 56 participants from across Europe responded to Phase 1. The majority had experience working as general practitioners. Consensus indicated that direct oral anticoagulants are the treatment of choice for managing patients with venous thromboembolism, at initiation and for extended treatment, with a review at three to six months to re-assess treatment effect and risk profile. Direct oral anticoagulant choice should be based on individual patient factors and include shared treatment choice between clinicians and patients; the only sub-group of patients requiring specific guidance are those with cancer.
conclusionResults demonstrate an appreciation of best practices, but highlight challenges in clinical practice. The patient pathway and consensus recommendations provided, aim to highlight key considerations for general practice decision making, and aid optimal venous thromboembolism treatment.
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.