ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Rivaroxaban versus low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a systematic review of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Rivaroxaban use during vitamin KResearch 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospitalization significantly elevates venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, yet optimal prophylactic anticoagulation remains debated. While low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has long been the standard, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) like rivaroxaban offer oral administration without routine monitoring. We systematically reviewed 24 studies identified through PubMed and Web of Science (2010-2024), using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were screened, duplicates removed, and data extracted on efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient-centered outcomes. High-risk subgroups, such as those with cancer or renal impairment were a focus of analysis. Efficacy: Rivaroxaban demonstrated non-inferiority to LMWH in VTE prevention, with superior postoperative thromboprophylaxis in orthopedic patients. Safety: Minor bleeding incidence was marginally higher with rivaroxaban, but major bleeding risk was comparable. Economics: Rivaroxaban reduced costs by approximately $1,200 per VTE patient, particularly in cancer-related cases. Rivaroxaban provides equally effective VTE prophylaxis with enhanced practicality (oral administration, no monitoring) and significant healthcare savings. Therapy selection should prioritize renal function, cancer status, and bleeding risk. Future research must address DOAC safety in severe renal/hepatic impairment and optimize reversal-agent accessibility.
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.