Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis: Minor bleeding
Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Minor bleeding · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (low certainty). Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for… (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 3.58 [0.55, 23.44] | 3 studies · 1440 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.