ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Comparative Review of Recommendations, Evidence Gaps, and Emerging Trends.
Review in Journal of clinical 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) continues to represent a significant global contributor to morbidity and mortality. Although multiple international societies have published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, important differences persist. This structured narrative review compares contemporary international guidance to identify areas of consensus, methodological divergence, evidence gaps, and priorities for future research. Recommendations were compared across diagnostic evaluation, anticoagulant selection, treatment duration, outpatient management, compression therapy, endovascular intervention, and special populations. Broad agreement was identified regarding clinical pretest probability assessment, D-dimer testing, compression ultrasonography, and direct oral anticoagulants as first-line therapy for most eligible patients with acute DVT. Clinically important differences remain, however, in the management of isolated distal DVT, anticoagulation duration, catheter-directed interventions, compression therapy, and selected high-risk populations. These discrepancies primarily reflect differences in publication timing, methodological frameworks, interpretation of emerging evidence, and healthcare-system context rather than fundamentally conflicting evidence. Contemporary international guidance therefore demonstrates substantial convergence on the core principles of acute DVT management while continuing to differ in areas supported by limited or evolving evidence. Future harmonization will require high-quality randomized trials, broader international collaboration, and the integration of precision medicine, validated risk-prediction models, biomarkers, and emerging anticoagulant strategies into guideline development.
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.