ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of venous thrombosis: illustrated review of appropriate use.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global burden of venous thromboembolism: incidence and outcome estimates of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients with pulmonary embolism and right ventricular dysfunction: a retrospective cohort study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Role of PCSK9 inhibitors in venous thromboembolism: current evidence and unmet clinical needs.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025Review
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
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become the preferred option for treatment of venous thromboembolism due to their favorable profile compared with other agents such as vitamin K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin. However, findings from randomized controlled trials suggest efficacy and/or safety concerns with DOAC use in some clinical contexts. This illustrated review will summarize indications where DOACs have proven efficacy and safety, situations where they fall short, and situations where uncertainty remains compared with other treatments for venous thromboembolism.
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.