ReviewBlood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis2026
The role of anti-factor Xa in patients with cancer receiving prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin: a meta-analysis.
Review in Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is a mainstay in the prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis. However, there is a lack of clear guidelines around routine monitoring of anti-factor Xa (AFXa) levels in patients with cancer receiving LMWH for prophylaxis. This study compares fixed vs laboratory-based dosing of LMWH in patients with cancer to elucidate if there are significant differences in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding outcomes for this population. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis that evaluates AFXa monitoring, specifically in patients with cancer. A total of 561 articles were screened, and 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies directly compared outcomes of fixed dosing vs AFXa-based dosing, and 4 studies evaluated outcomes based on whether AFXa values were subprophylactic, prophylactic, or supraprophylactic. The relative risk (RR) of VTE was higher in fixed dosing vs adjusting for AFXa levels, although this failed to reach statistical significance (RR, 9.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-95.29;
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.