ReviewResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
A systematic review of direct oral anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma.
Review in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulmonary embolism associated with CRBN-targeting immunomodulatory drugs: a FAERS-based pharmacovigilance and mechanistic analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Universal Use of Novel Oral Anticoagulant Prophylaxis in Myeloma Patients Undergoing IMiD-Based Therapy: Real-World Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- MiR-503-5p as a potential biomarker for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in multiple myeloma (MM) and its role in disease development.Annals of hematology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) is associated with increased venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Current guidelines recommend aspirin or low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis depending on VTE risk. Nevertheless, VTE risks remain high: a recent meta-analysis reported an incidence of 6.2% during the entire MM course. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) showed promising results in other malignancies. This systematic review provides an overview of evidence on DOAC thromboprophylaxis in MM. PubMed and Embase were searched up to November 21, 2023, for studies evaluating MM and DOAC thromboprophylaxis (PROSPERO: CRD42022376152). Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and texts, assessed bias using a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, and performed data extraction and analysis. Seven articles comprising 416 patients with DOAC thromboprophylaxis were included, primarily involving newly diagnosed patients with MM (56.3%) receiving lenalidomide-based regimens (69.1%). Overall Newcastle Ottawa Scale study quality was moderate. Four studies reported follow-up duration ranging from 90 days after induction to 7 months. VTE proportions ranged from 0% to 23.5%, with 4 studies reporting 0%. The proportions of minor, clinically relevant nonmajor, and major bleeding ranged from 0% to 18.2%, 0% to 7.7%, and 0% to 4.5%, respectively. Arterial thrombosis proportions ranged from 0% to 2.9%. Only 2 studies reported on mortality (2% and 7.1%). Overall Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Current evidence regarding routine DOACs in MM is insufficient, warranting further research to establish the DOAC thromboprophylaxis risk-to-benefit ratio in MM.
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.