ReviewHealth economics review2026
Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for venous thromboembolism with different etiologies: a systematic review.
Review in Health economics review, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) imposes significant clinical and economic burdens. While direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer favorable efficacy and safety, their cost-effectiveness across diverse VTE etiologies remains incompletely synthesized.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOACs versus comparators for VTE management stratified by etiology.
methodsA PRISMA-compliant systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and NHS EED (2020–2025). Economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness or cost-utility outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist.
resultsTwenty studies were included (9 CAT, 3 post-surgical, 6 hospitalized VTE, 2 COVID-19). DOACs were cost-effective or dominant in 18/20 studies. For cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), DOACs dominated LMWHs and were cost-effective versus placebo (ICERs: $5,794–$11,947/QALY). DOACs were also dominant for post-surgical prophylaxis and in general hospitalized VTE (ICERs: -$1,862/QALY to $125.68/QALY), while rivaroxaban was cost-effective for post-COVID-19 prophylaxis (ICER: $5,386/QALY).
conclusionDOACs, particularly apixaban and rivaroxaban, are an economically dominant strategy for VTE across most etiologies. Their adoption as a first-line therapy can improve patient outcomes while significantly reducing healthcare costs.
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.