SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
The novel anticoagulant dabigatran versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis following total hip replacement: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNovel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now more often being prescribed following surgery to reduce the risk of thromboembolism. In this analysis we aimed to compare dabigatran with enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis following total hip replacement (THR).
methodsOnline databases were searched for studies solely comparing dabigatran with enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis following THR. Relevant studies were finalized after carefully assessing the titles and abstracts. The clinical outcomes including outcomes of efficacy and safety were considered as the endpoints. The updated version of RevMan software was used to carry out this statistical analysis. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to represent the results.
resultsA total number of 4 studies including 6168 participants were assigned to dabigatran following THR whereas 3370 participants were assigned to enoxaparin resulting in a total number of 9538 participants which were included in this analysis. The time frame for participants’ enrollment varied from year 2002 to year 2012. Results of this analysis showed that when dabigatran was compared with enoxaparin following THR, deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.80 – 1.18; P = 0.77), venous thromboembolism (VTE) (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.70 – 1.19; P = 0.51) and pulmonary embolism (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.25 – 2.71; P = 0.76) were similarly manifested. In addition, major bleeding (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.85 – 1.84; P = 0.26), fatal bleeding (RR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.12 – 52.03; P = 0.55), minor bleeding (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.89 – 1.32; P = 0.44), bleeding in a critical organ (RR: 2.98, 95% CI: 0.12 – 73.05; P = 0.50) and bleeding requiring blood transfusion (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.77 – 1.59; P = 0.58) were still similarly manifested. However, when dabigatran 225 mg dosage was compared with enoxaparin, the risks for DVT (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63 – 1.00; P = 0.05) and VTE (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46 – 0.92; P = 0.02) were significantly lower with dabigatran without any increase in bleeding events.
conclusionIt can be concluded that the NOAC dabigatran was equally effective compared to enoxaparin for thrombo-prophylaxis following THR. No significant thrombotic event was observed with dabigatran when compared to enoxaparin. However, a higher dosage of dabigatran was associated with significantly reduced DVT and VTE. Nevertheless, due to the several limitations of this analysis, the bleeding outcomes were inconclusive and therefore, the results should be confirmed in further newer studies.
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.