MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290632044 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.039579

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4290632044 on OpenAlexaff
Shadi Yaghi, Ian J. Saldanha, Chelsea Misquith, Bashar Zaidat, Asghar Shah, Kareem Joudi, Bianca Persaud, Feras Abdul Khalek, Liqi Shu, Adam de Havenon, Eva Mistry, Ekaterina Bakradze, Eric Goldstein, John L. Reagan, Aikaterini Theodorou, Lina Palaiodimou, Karen L. Furie, Thalia S. Field, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Brian Mac Grory

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskWarfarinVenous thrombosisRandomized controlled trialVitamin K antagonistMeta-analysisInternal medicineStroke (engine)Observational studyApixabanThrombosisRivaroxabanAtrial fibrillationConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: High level evidence for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis is lacking. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis. Methods: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021228800). We searched MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Web of Science Core Collection between January 1, 2007 and Feb 22, 2022. Search terms included a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary terms for cerebral venous thrombosis, vitamin K antagonists/warfarin, and DOACs. We included both randomized and nonrandomized studies that compared vitamin K antagonists and DOACs in 5 or more patients with cerebral venous thrombosis. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy (recurrent venous thromboembolism and complete recanalization) and safety (major hemorrhage) outcomes, using relative risks (RRs). Results: Out of 10 665 records identified, we screened 254 as potentially eligible. Nineteen studies (16 observational studies [n=1735] and 3 randomized controlled trials [n=215]) met the inclusion criteria. All 3 randomized controlled trials had some concerns, and all 16 observational studies had at least moderate risk of bias. When compared with vitamin K antagonist treatment, DOAC had comparable risks of recurrent venous thromboembolism (relative risk [RR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.52–1.37], I 2 =0%), major hemorrhage (RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.40–1.21], I 2 =0%), intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.30–1.12]; I 2 =0%), death (RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.54–2.43], I 2 =1%), and complete venous recanalization (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87–1.11]; I 2 =0%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, DOACs, and warfarin may have comparable efficacy and safety. Given the limitations of the studies included (low number of randomized controlled trials, modest total sample size, rare outcome events), our findings should be interpreted with caution pending confirmation by ongoing randomized controlled trials and large, prospective, observational studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207