SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Non-Clotting Factor Prophylaxis Versus. on-Demand Therapy in Hemophilia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionHemophilia A and B are among the most common inherited bleeding disorders in humans with lifelong risk of spontaneous and recurrent bleeding. While prophylaxis with clotting factors has improved outcomes, challenges like inhibitor development and treatment burden persist. We aim for a comparative effectiveness between these agents and traditional therapy with this study.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. Studies were identified through PubMed, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 30th, 2025. Eligible studies were double-arm RCTs comparing non-clotting factor prophylaxis (emicizumab, fitusiran, concizumab) and on-demand therapy in patients with hemophilia A or B.ResultsNon-clotting factor prophylaxis significantly reduced the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for all treated bleeds [
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.