ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Comparison of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis - A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Different Anticoagulants in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited available evidence comparing DOACs with warfarin suggests efficacy and safety of DOACs for CVT. We aimed to evaluate whether a specific DOAC is preferred for the treatment of CVT. This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with CVTs between September 2018 and September 2022 treated with a DOAC. The primary outcome was rate of partial or complete recanalization. Secondary outcomes included rate of recurrent VTE, CVT extension, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and death within 180 days after DOAC initiation. Of 31 patients with CVT, 21 received apixaban, 7 received rivaroxaban, and 3 received dabigatran. Among those with repeat imaging, the primary composite outcome occurred in 100%, 80%, and 100% for each group, respectively (P = 0.34). One patient had extension of CVT while on apixaban and one patient had increased midline shift while on rivaroxaban. No other secondary outcomes were observed. There do not appear to be significant efficacy or safety differences between DOACs when used for CVT treatment, though larger studies are needed to validate these findings.
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.