MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413099979 · doi:10.1002/jgh3.70194

Efficacy and Safety of Anticoagulants in Patients With Cirrhosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized and Non‐Randomized Studies

2025· review· en· W4413099979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zain ul Abideen, Marium Khan, Barka Sajid, Noor Ul Huda Ramzan, Rabeya Farid, Javed Iqbal, Jalib Ahmed, Aqsa Kabir, Maryam Shahzad, Muhammad Osama, Sania Aimen, Ammad Javaid Chaudhary, Ameer Haider Cheema

Bibliographic record

VenueJGH Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisInternal medicineCochrane LibraryPortal vein thrombosisConfidence intervalClinical endpointThrombosisPublication biasFunnel plotSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) contributes substantially to morbidity and mortality in cirrhotic patients. A clear insight into the anticoagulation therapy benefits in these patients could improve clinical decision‐making. This meta‐analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Anticoagulants in cirrhotic patients with PVT. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to September 2024. The Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were pooled for dichotomous outcomes under the random effects model using Review Manager 5.4.1. The primary endpoint of interest is PVT recanalization. Quality assessment was done through the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane RoB2.0 tool. Leave‐one‐out sensitivity analysis was done to investigate the cause of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots. Results Twenty‐three studies (including 19 cohorts and 4 Randomized trials), pooling 81,599 patients, were included in the analysis. Anticoagulants significantly increased the PVT recanalization (RR = 2.00; 95% CI: [1.59, 2.52]; p < 0.00001; I 2 = 13%), PVT improvement (RR = 1.98; 95% CI: [1.70, 2.29], p < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%) while decreasing the PVT stability (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: [0.62,0.99], p = 0.04; I 2 = 19%) and PVT progression (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: [0.29, 0.60], p < 0.00001; I 2 = 27%). Other outcomes including mortality (RR = 0.53; 95% CI: [0.27, 1.03]; p = 0.06; I 2 = 94%), total bleeding (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: [0.76, 1.37], p = 0.89; I 2 = 31%), esophageal variceal bleeding (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: [0.54, 1.01], p = 0.06; I 2 = 56%), Gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: [0.78, 1.48]; p = 0.66, I 2 = 13%) and Intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.19; 95% CI: [0.89, 1.58], p = 0.24, I 2 = 0%) were comparable between the 2 arms. Conclusion Anticoagulants significantly increased PVT recanalization and PVT improvement while decreasing PVT stability and PVT progression in cirrhotic patients. Other outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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 score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJGH OpenSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207