ArticleCancer medicine2026
Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Treating Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
Abstract
backgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated non-inferiority to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer-associated thrombosis. However, patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer receiving DOACs have reported increased major bleeding events. Hereby, we aim to compare the risks of recurrent thromboembolism and bleeding between those treated with DOACs and LMWH.
methodsUsing Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we retrospectively identified GI cancer patients with newly diagnosed VTE from 2011 to 2020. Outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding. Covariate balancing was performed using inverse probability weighting, and Cox proportional hazards models compared risks, with a competing risk model for death. Follow-up was 12 months.
resultsAmong 1895 patients (1038 on DOACs, 857 on enoxaparin), recurrent VTE occurred in 20.71% of DOAC and 19.25% of enoxaparin patients. Competing risk analysis showed relatively higher recurrent VTE risk with DOACs (subdistribution HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.48; p < 0.01). Regarding composite bleeding risk, DOACs were similar compared with LMWH (subdistribution HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.68-1.45; p = 0.97). However, DOACs presented with an increased GI bleeding risk (subdistribution HR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.48-4.54; p < 0.01) but a reduced intracranial hemorrhage risk (subdistribution HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.78; p = 0.01).
conclusionsCompared with DOACs, LMWH expressed a lower risk of recurrent VTE in GI cancer patients. However, DOAC presented with a lower intracranial hemorrhage risk but a higher GI bleeding risk. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.
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.