ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Heparin for Cancer-Related Stroke: Augmented Meta-Analysis.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Ischemic stroke is common among patients with systemic malignancy, associated with increased risk of neurological deterioration and mortality compared to the general population. Optimal approach to secondary stroke prevention in cancer patients is unclear. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated available data on the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and heparin products for stroke prevention in this population. Methods: Using the Nested Knowledge AutoLit software, we performed PubMed search in September 2023 for articles reporting the use of antithrombotics for cancer-associated stroke. We conducted systematic review and meta-analysis. We also used a novel computational augmentation method to amplify the sample size to predict the effect before and after sample size augmentation and predict the results of further trials. Results: Among 253 potential studies screened, 7 were eligible for inclusion. 439 patients were treated with DOACs and 3968 with heparin products. Among patients treated with heparin, intracerebral hemorrhage (8.8 % vs 1.6, p=.02), overall hemorrhagic complications (17.9% vs 3.5%, p<.001), and mortality [28.1% vs 23.5%, p<.001] were respectively significantly higher than those reported among patients who received DOAC for cancer-associated ischemic stroke. No significant difference was observed in the rates of recurrent deep venous thrombosis, clinically significant hemorrhage, and clinical outcomes between the treatment groups. Similar results were shown with augmented meta-analysis. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows DOACs may have efficacy and safety profile similar to heparin products for recurrent stroke prevention in patients with cancer. Given the small number of studies and limited data, findings should be interpreted with caution.
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.