SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
The efficacy and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis after colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative Laboratory, Imaging, and Risk Assessment Before Elective Colorectal Cancer Resection: What the Clinician Must Remember.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Personalized Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- The Multidisciplinary Approach to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a predictive model for perioperative venous thromboembolism in colorectal cancer patients based on D-dimer combined with fibrinogen levels.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Real-world data in the absence of RCTs: the case for DOACs.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Safety in Spine Surgery: Risk Factors for Intraoperative Blood Loss and Management Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report (1) efficacy and (2) safety outcomes comparing extended thromboprophylaxis (ETP) with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus no ETP after colorectal surgery.
methodsA systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2024. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies investigating ETP with LMWH or DOAC for at least 28 days were included. (1) Efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate at 30-days postoperatively. (2) Safety outcomes included major bleeding events at 30-90-days. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model.
resultsFive studies (2936 patients) investigating colorectal surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were included. Total VTE rates were significantly reduced in the LMWH ETP group compared with no ETP [0.56% (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.50]. The DOAC ETP group was also compared with no ETP with lower total VTE rates [OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.67]. There was no difference in VTE rates between LMWH and DOAC ETP. There were no differences in major bleeding events in the LMWH ETP group at 90-days [OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03-2.24], or the DOAC ETP at 30-days [OR 2.68, 95% CI 0.32-22.35]. There were no VTE-related mortalities at 90-days in either group.
conclusionETP after colorectal surgery for CRC and IBD reduced the incidence of VTEs with no impact on major bleeding within 90-days. ETP for at least 28 days should be considered particularly for those who have a high risk for postoperative VTE.
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.