What do systematic reviews say?

Vitamin K antagonists vs no VKA

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) showed no clear difference in minor bleeding (up to 3 months) compared with no VKA (low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.69 [0.38, 1.26]
  2 studies · 1026 participants
  Low

Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA)

It is very uncertain whether low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) changes minor bleeding (up to 3 months) compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (very low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.95 [0.2, 4.61]
  1 study · 234 participants
  Very low

Low molecular weight heparin vs no LMWH

Low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) showed no clear difference in minor bleeding (up to 3 months) compared with no LMWH (low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.35 [0.62, 2.92]
  2 studies · 544 participants
  Low

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.83 [0.57, 1.23]
  4 studies · 1055 participants
  Low

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis probably leads to higher minor bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.58 [1.15, 2.16]
  5 studies · 2854 participants
  Moderate

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes minor GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.37 [0.41, 4.64]
  2 studies · 1495 participants
  Very low

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes minor upper GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.03 [0.04, 25.97]
  2 studies · 1495 participants
  Very low

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor lower GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.54 [0.72, 3.27]
  2 studies · 1495 participants
  Low

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis probably leads to higher minor non‐GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.37 [1.44, 3.89]
  2 studies · 1495 participants
  Moderate

Idraparinux secondary prophylaxis vs vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis

It is very uncertain whether low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis changes minor bleeding (main analysis ‐ active cancer) compared with vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.78 [0.47, 1.27]
  4 studies · 1712 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention leads to lower adeno carcinoma in situ (AIS) associated with HPV16/18 (high certainty).

• Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.36 [0.17, 0.78]
  2 studies · 34562 participants
  High

LMWH prophylaxis vs fondaparinux prophylaxis

LMWH prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor Bleeding compared with fondaparinux prophylaxis (low certainty).

• Anticoagulation for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.83 [0.34, 2.05]
  2 studies · 398 participants
  Low

LMWH prophylaxis vs UFH

LMWH prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with UFH prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

• Anticoagulation for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.01 [0.76, 1.33]
  2 studies · 1194 participants
  Moderate

Heparin prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Heparin prophylaxis leads to higher minor bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (high certainty).

• Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.7 [1.13, 2.55]
  16 studies · 9245 participants
  High

Summary of findings: EBRT vs no EBRT

Summary of findings: EBRT showed no clear difference in endometrial carcinoma‐related death compared with no EBRT (moderate certainty).

• Adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I endometrial cancer 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.96 [0.72, 1.28]
  2965 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  13 studies · 721 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 188 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  9 studies · 280 participants
  Very low

beta‐lactam monotherapy vs beta‐lactam (cloxacillin) plus aminoglycoside (gentamicin)

beta‐lactam monotherapy showed no clear difference in all cause mortality compared with beta‐lactam‐aminoglycoside combination therapy (high certainty).

• Beta‐lactam versus beta‐lactam‐aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.87 [0.75, 1.02]
  44 studies · 7186 participants
  High