MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Duration of primary/secondary treatment to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409263096 on OpenAlexaff
Anqi Li, Rasha Khatib, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Fazila Aloweni, Liming Lü, Qingyong He, Jiaming Wu, Peiming Zhang, Yuyuan Tang, Sureka Pavalagantharajah, Nigar Sekercioglu, Carlos Álvarez García, Serge Koujanian, Arnav Agarwal, Sean A. Kennedy, Ignacio Neumann, Sam Schulman, Wojtek Wiercioch, Gabriel Rada, Andrew M. Peseski, Thomas L. Ortel, Yuqing Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntithromboticPulmonary embolismRelative riskRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalInternal medicineDeep veinNumber needed to harmMeta-analysisThrombosisSurgeryNumber needed to treat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Antithrombotic therapy can prevent recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). It is, however, associated with an increased risk for major bleeding. This meta-analysis systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the duration of antithrombotic therapy to assess benefits and harms. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared shorter (3-6 months) with longer (>6 months) courses of anticoagulation for the primary treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or that compared discontinued with indefinite antithrombotic therapy for the secondary prevention of VTE. Pairs of reviewers screened the eligible trials and collected data. This study included 22 RCTs (11 617 participants). Pooled estimates showed that, for the primary treatment of unprovoked VTE, VTE provoked by chronic risk factors or transient risk factors, treating patients with a longer course (>6 months) of anticoagulation, as opposed to a shorter course (3-6 months), probably reduced recurrent PE (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.02) and DVT (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.63-1.14), but it was associated with increased mortality (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.85-2.41) (moderate certainty) and a higher risk for major bleeding (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.02-3.98; high certainty). For the secondary prevention of unprovoked VTE and VTE provoked by chronic risk factors, when compared with discontinuing treatment, indefinite anticoagulation therapy was associated with decreased mortality (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81), a reduction in recurrent PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.41) and DVT (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21), and an increase in the risk for bleeding (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.18-3.30), all supported by high certainty. Indefinite antiplatelet therapy may be associated with decreased mortality (RR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.53-1.68; low certainty), probably a reduction in recurrent PE (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41-1.03) and DVT (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.13) (moderate certainty), and may increase the risk for bleeding (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.48-3.41; low certainty). In summary, for the primary treatment of all types of VTE, shorter (3-6 months) duration of anticoagulation is more beneficial. For the secondary prevention of unprovoked VTE or VTE provoked by chronic risk factors, indefinite antithrombotic treatment is more beneficial.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207