Direct Oral Anticoagulants versus Warfarin for Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials.

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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. DOACs vs Warfarin for Post-myocardial Infarction Left Ventricular Thrombus: A GRADE-assessed Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Trials.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
   Pooled it
2. "DOACs for Left Ventricular Thrombus: Persistent Equipoise Despite New Observational and Randomized Data": comment.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.