ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Reduced-dose vs full-dose direct oral anticoagulants for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article 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 1 paper.
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.
- Reduced-dose direct oral anticoagulants for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: finding the sweet spot.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality globally. Although direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have improved extended VTE treatment, the optimal dose for balancing efficacy and safety remains unclear. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of reduced-dose DOACs vs full-dose regimens during extended anticoagulation for VTE. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed up to April 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing reduced-dose vs full-dose DOACs for extended VTE treatment in patients with or without cancer. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. The secondary outcomes included major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all-cause mortality, and VTE-related mortality. Results: Five RCTs involving 8781 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean ± SD age of patients was 61.3 ± 13.4 years, and median follow-up duration was 12 months. Reduced-dose DOACs were comparable with full-dose regimens in preventing recurrent VTE (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.29) and all-cause death (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63-1.17). However, reduced-dose DOACs significantly lowered the risk of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82), major bleeding (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92), and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) compared with full-dose regimens. No significant subgroup differences were observed between cancer-associated and general VTE populations. Conclusion: Reduced-dose DOACs are as effective as full-dose regimens in preventing recurrent VTE and are associated with significantly lower bleeding risks. However, more RCTs with extended follow-up and focused inclusion of cancer patients are warranted 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.