ArticleWorld journal of methodology2026
Direct oral anticoagulants
Article in World journal of methodology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer increases the risk of developing dangerous and sometimes deadly blood clots, which are known as cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). While direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can be considered for CAT, evidence is limited regarding their use in comparison to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).
aimTo compare the efficacy, bleeding risks, reoccurrence rate, and patient-reported outcomes of DOACs compared to LMWH in CAT of different cancer types.
methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 checklist was followed during the search and screening of publications. Articles were searched systematically through biomedical databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane covering studies published from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2024. Articles were carefully chosen and studied according to the set Population Intervention Comparator Outcomes criteria. The research we analyzed examined the use of anticoagulants in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in comparison LMWH. The outcomes were cases of bleeding, VTE recurrence in patients, and their level of satisfaction with the treatment results.
resultsThe 21371 cancer patients were included in 29 studies (15 randomized clinical trials and 14 observational studies). Rates of VTE recurrence between DOAC (5.6%-11%) and LMWH (7.9%-11%) in major trials were similar. There was a lot of difference to bleeding risks based on subtypes of cancers. In upper gastrointestinal (6.2%) and genitourinary (4.5%) cancers, the rate of significant bleeding was greater with DOACs, and the risk ratio compared to LMWH was 1.5 or 3-fold. Conversely, the rate of bleeding was lower in remitting patients (2.1% DOACs
conclusionDoctors use both LMWH and DOACs for CAT, the decision of which patient to use DOACs depends on bleeding risk, with a specific focus on the risk by cancer subtypes. CAT management needs to be tailored to the specific cancer sub-type (especially upper
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.