ReviewThrombosis journal2025
Direct oral anticoagulants compared to low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism among individuals with gastrointestinal cancer: an updated meta-analysis.
Review in Thrombosis journal, 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.
- Personalized Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer, particularly gastrointestinal cancer, is associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism. Recent studies have increasingly compared direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for treating venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of DOACs compared to LMWH for VTE in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.
methodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from the inception to February 20, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies comparing the effect of DOACs with LMWH on VTE recurrence, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and major bleeding among patients with active gastrointestinal cancer suffering from VTE.
resultsFinally, 13 studies, including 8 cohort studies and 5 RCTs, were included. The random-effects model revealed that compared to using LMWH, the risk of VTE recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.59, 0.97), I2 = 0.00%) was significantly decreased and the risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR 1.64, 95% CI (1.10, 2.45), I2 = 59.79%) was significantly increased when using DOACs; however, the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.16, 95% CI (0.86, 1.56), I2 = 28.51%) did not significantly change. RCTs suggested no significant change (RR 0.80, 95% CI (0.50, 1.27), I2 = 0.00%) in the risk of VTE recurrence, but cohort studies indicated a decreased risk (RR 0.73, 95% CI (0.54, 0.99), I2 = 0.00%) of VTE recurrence when using DOACs instead of LMWH. Both cohort studies (RR 1.02, 95% CI (0.75, 1.39), I2 = 20.43%) and RCTs (RR 1.65, 95% CI (0.89, 3.07), I2 = 26.59%) showed no significant difference in the risk of major bleeding when using DOACs instead of LMWH. RCTs showed an elevated risk (RR 2.32, 95% CI (1.48, 3.64), I2 = 0.00%) of clinically relevant non-major bleeding when using DOACs, but cohort studies reported no significant change (RR 1.40, 95% CI (0.86, 2.29), I2 = 60.84%) in the risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding.
conclusionAmong patients with gastrointestinal cancer, compared to LMWH, DOACs may not increase the risk of VTE recurrence and major bleeding, but may increase the risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding.
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.