ArticleThrombosis journal2025
Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article 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.
- Role of Thromboelastometry in Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy: A Narrative Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoagulation dysfunction significantly impacts sepsis prognosis. Standardized methods for evaluating anticoagulant efficacy and safety in this population remain lacking. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in sepsis patients.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticoagulants against placebo/no treatment in sepsis patients. The reduction in 28/30-day all-cause mortality or the regression of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was regarded as efficacy endpoints, while bleeding complications constituted the most prevalent adverse events.
resultsEighteen RCTs involving 8053 patients were included. Anticoagulant therapy demonstrated an 8% mortality risk reduction versus placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.98; P = 0.02). In six studies of baseline DIC patients, anticoagulants showed non-significant mortality reduction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62-1.22; P = 0.42) but significantly enhanced DIC regression (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32-2.00; P < 0.00001). Anticoagulants increased bleeding risk (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.16-1.49; P < 0.0001).
conclusionAnticoagulant therapy confers survival benefit in the overall sepsis population despite increased bleeding risk. While improving DIC regression in sepsis-associated DIC, mortality reduction in this subgroup lacked statistical significance. Further research should clarify anticoagulants' role in DIC-specific sepsis management.
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.