SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best evidence summary on anticoagulant management in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Review
- Rivaroxaban versus low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a systematic review of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To synthesize pharmacoeconomic evidence of prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and evaluate the quality of the studies. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the Center for Reviews and Dissemination Database, the Health Technology Assessment Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database were searched to collect economic evaluations. The search covered publications from their inception until June 13, 2024. Study selection was conducted independently by two researchers, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. The quality of the studies were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist, and the basic characteristics of the included studies were summarized descriptively. Results: A total of 15 studies were included, covering different income level countries: the United States, Spain, China, the Netherlands, Canada, and Brazil. Economic evaluation results for prevention strategies varied in different countries. The baseline VTE incidence and drug costs will determine whether DOACs are worthwhile. For the treatment of VTE in cancer patients, DOACs were found to be more cost-effective compared to low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and warfarin, though the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied significantly across countries. However, there is still a lack of pharmacoeconomic studies based on direct evidence on which DOAC to choose for VTE treatment in cancer patients. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of DOACs for VTE in cancer patients has been proven. Further research is needed to determine the best choice of DOAC. Thromboprophylaxis in all cancer patients is not recommended. It is still necessary for clinicians to evaluate the risk of VTE. Pharmacoeconomic study results are significantly influenced by the drug costs, patient preferences, and income levels of different countries and regions. Economic decisions should be made according to the specific national background.
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.