SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Effect of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Traditional Anticoagulation in Budd-Chiari Syndrome.
Synthesis in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 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.
- Coagulation Abnormalities in Liver Cirrhosis: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus traditional anticoagulants, including vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), in the treatment of Budd-Chiari Syndrome (BCS).MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases up to July 2025. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on patients with BCS who received DOACs (specifically dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) compared to those treated with VKAs or LMWHs.ResultsOf 68 identified records, two retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. Sharma et al (India, n = 98) compared dabigatran with VKAs after percutaneous endovascular intervention. Stent patency and major bleeding rates were similar between groups, with no difference in mortality, suggesting that dabigatran was noninferior to VKAs. Semmler et al (Austria, n = 43) compared DOACs with VKAs/LMWH in primary BCS patients, many with underlying myeloproliferative neoplasms. Over a median follow-up of 82.5 months, DOACs demonstrated comparable complete response rates and major bleeding risks. Both studies emphasized the convenience of DOACs due to oral administration and lack of INR monitoring.ConclusionCurrent evidence, though limited to small retrospective cohorts, suggests that DOACs may be as effective and safe as traditional anticoagulants in BCS management. DOACs offer practical advantages, particularly in patients with difficulties maintaining therapeutic INR or requiring long-term anticoagulation. Larger prospective studies and randomized controlled trials 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.