Meta-Analysis Comparing Direct Oral Anticoagulants to Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer

Bhatia, Kirtipal; Uberoi, Guneesh; Bajaj, Navkaranbir; Jain, Vardhmaan; Arora, Sameer; Tafur, Alfonso; Bangalore, Sripal; Olin, Jeffrey W.; Piazza, Gregory; Goldhaber, Samuel Z.; Vaduganathan, Muthiah; Qamar, Arman

doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.07.027

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the time the search was ended (October 6, 2020), 46 records were identified, of which 26 were discarded on title and abstract ( n = 24) or full‐text ( n = 2). The 20 remaining meta‐analyses were published in nonpredatory peer‐reviewed journals: five studies pooled the data of two RCTs, 6‐10 four studies pooled the data of three RCTs, 11‐14 and 11 studies pooled the data of four RCTs 15‐25 . The main characteristics of the 20 meta‐analyses are described in Table 1 and the results of the 20 meta‐analyses for efficacy and safety endpoint are shown Figure 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 20 remaining meta-analyses were published in nonpredatory peer-reviewed journals: five studies pooled the data of two RCTs, 6-10 four studies pooled the data of three RCTs, [11][12][13][14] and 11 studies pooled the data of four RCTs. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The main characteristics of the 20 meta-analyses are described in Table 1 and the results of the 20 meta-analyses for efficacy and safety endpoint are shown Figure 1. Within each category of meta-analysis (two, three, or 4 RCTs), the results were similar regarding the risks of VTE recurrence (differences in pooled relative…”

Section: Re Sults and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An epidemic of redundant meta‐analyses

Chapelle

Ollier

Girard

et al. 2021

Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Meta-analyses are widely used to strengthen available evidence and obtain more precise estimates of treatment effect than any individual trial. Paradoxically, multiplication of meta-analyses on the same topic can lead to confusion as practitioners no longer benefit from a rapid and synthetic response. This phenomenon may appear disproportionate when the number of published meta-analyses exceeds the number of original studies.Objectives: To describe an example of redundant meta-analyses published in the same area with the same randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify all published meta-analyses of original RCTs that compared direct oral anticoagulants with low molecular weight heparins in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Forest plots were used to represent the meta-analyses results for efficacy (VTE recurrence) and safety (major bleeding) endpoints. An authors' network was constructed to explore the links between the authors of the published meta-analyses.Results: In the past 3 years, four original RCTs were the subject of 20 published metaanalyses by 142 authors: five, four, and 11 meta-analyses pooled the data of two, three, and four RCTs, respectively. The results of meta-analyses were similar regarding the risks of VTE recurrence and major bleeding. The 11 meta-analyses of four RCTs were published within 6 months of the publication of the last RCT. Conclusions:The epidemic proportions of such redundant literature and authorship could be moderated by developing "living" meta-analyses and encouraging authors of new RCTs to update the corresponding meta-analysis in the same paper as their original research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%