ArticleThrombosis and haemostasis2026
Effects of Cocoa Extract and Multivitamin Supplementation on Venous Thromboembolism in the COSMOS Trial.
Article in Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest cocoa flavanols and multivitamin-multimineral (MVM) supplements may confer arterial vascular benefits. However, their effects on clinical venous thromboembolic events have been infrequently examined.To evaluate whether cocoa extract (CE) or MVM supplementation reduces the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among older adults.We conducted an ancillary study analysis of the COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS), a completed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-by-2 factorial trial of CE and MVM supplementation for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer among 21,442 older US adults. Our primary outcome was self-reported incident VTE, defined as the first reported deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) event after randomization; secondary outcomes were the individual components.Over a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 379 participants reported an incident VTE event (including 277 DVT and 165 PE). In intention-to-treat analyses, neither CE (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.08) nor MVM (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.09) significantly reduced VTE risk, with similar findings for DVT and PE. Exploratory latency and per-protocol analyses suggested potential patterns of benefit that merit further evaluation.In this large trial of older adults, neither CE nor MVM supplementation significantly reduced the risk of VTE or its component parts in intention-to-treat analyses. Additional research may help clarify whether these supplements influence VTE risk in other contexts or populations.
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.