SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2024
The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: an updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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.
- Association of periodontal disease with risk atrial fibrillation: systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Shared genes and relevant potential molecular linkages between COVID-19 and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism (VTE). The impact of NOACs on chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) remains controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of NOACs compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with CTEPH. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for relevant studies, encompassing data from inception until November 2023. The data were pooled using a fixed-effects model if the I2 value was less than 50%; otherwise, a random-effects model was employed. Overall, two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 4556 patients with CTEPH were included. Patients receiving NOACs exhibited a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.76) and major bleeding (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92) compared to those with VKAs. There were no significant differences in the rate of VTE recurrence (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.72-1.59), total bleeding (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60-1.01), and minor bleeding (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.73-1.69) between the two studied groups. Similar results were found in the subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.This meta-analysis provided evidence that NOACs could be superior to VKAs for the treatment of CTEPH. NOACs might be safe and a convenient alternative to VKAs for thromboprophylaxis in patients with CTEPH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39080118What 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.