Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis: Symptomatic DVT
It is very uncertain whether vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis changes symptomatic deep vein thrombosis compared with no prophylaxis (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Symptomatic deep vein thrombosis · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy It is very uncertain whether vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis changes symptomatic deep vein thrombosis compared with no prophylaxis (very low certainty). Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for… (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.08 [0.01, 1.42] | 1 study · 311 participants | Very low |
VKA prophylaxis vs No prophylaxis Symptomatic DVT · ambulatory people with cancer without VTE receiving systemic therapy VKA prophylaxis showed no clear difference in symptomatic DVT compared with no prophylaxis (low certainty). Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006466.PUB6, superseded | RR 0.08 [0, 1.42] | 1 study · 311 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.