Rivaroxaban Compared to Placebo for the Treatment of Leg Superficial Vein Thrombosis: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The role of rivaroxaban in the treatment of leg superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) is uncertain. This article aims to determine if rivaroxaban is an effective and safe treatment for leg SVT. Patients with symptomatic leg SVT of at least 5 cm length were randomized to 45 days of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily or to placebo, and followed for a total of 90 days. Treatment failure (required a nonstudy anticoagulant; had proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; or had surgery for SVT) at 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome. Secondary efficacy outcomes included leg pain severity, and venous disease-specific and general health-related quality of life over 90 days. Major bleeding at 90 days was the primary safety outcome. Poor enrollment led to the trial being stopped after 85 of the planned 600 patients were randomized to rivaroxaban (n = 43) or placebo (n = 42). One rivaroxaban and five placebo patients had a treatment failure by 90 days (absolute risk reduction = 9.0%, 95% confidence interval: −22 to 5.9%). Leg pain improvement did not differ at 7 (p = 0.16) or 45 days (p = 0.89), but was greater with rivaroxaban at 90 days (p = 0.011). There was no difference in venous disease-specific (p = 0.99) or general health-related (p = 0.37) quality of life over 45 days. There were no major bleeds or deaths in either group. There were no identifiable differences in efficacy or safety between rivaroxaban and placebo in patients with symptomatic SVT but comparisons were undermined by a much smaller than planned sample size (NCT1499953).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".