SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparison of efficacy and safety of thrombus prevention strategies after abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery: Bayesian network based meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery increases the risk of mortality and disability. However, there is insufficient evidence supporting the choice of anticoagulation strategies. Methods: We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials from inception to January 2024. Studies concerning thrombosis prevention after abdominal and pelvic surgery were included. Network meta-analysis(NMA) and direct meta-analysis (DMA) methods were employed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various prophylactic strategies. Results: Twenty clinical trials involving a total of 4923 patients were included. The DMA results showed that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was more effective in preventing VTE compared to no treatment (OR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.19), and LMWH plus physiotherapy was more effective than LMWH (OR = 10.95; 95% CI: 1.33 to 90.40). The NMA results indicated that DOACs (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.76) and LMWH (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77) were significantly effective in preventing venous thrombosis compared with no treatment. The cumulative ranking probability curve (SUCRA) showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were the best intervention. In terms of major bleeding, unfractionated heparin (UFH) had a higher risk than LMWH, physiotherapy, and no treatment, with statistically significant differences. The SUCRA analysis indicated that physiotherapy was the best intervention for major bleeding. Conclusion: Existing evidence suggests that DOACs can provide better thromboprophylaxis efficacy for patients after abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery, achieving an optimal balance between efficacy and safety. LMWH has become an intervention with efficacy second only to DOACs, with similar safety. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
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.