Table 16.

—[Section 4.3] Summary of Findings: Should Oral Anticoagulation Be Used in Patients With Cancer With No Therapeutic or Prophylactic Indication for Anticoagulation?¹⁰²

Outcomes	Illustrative Comparative Risksa (95% CI)		Relative Effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (Studies)	Quality of the Evidence (GRADE)
	Assumed Risk, Control	Corresponding Risk, Oral Anticoagulation
Death; follow-up: median 1 y	457 per 1,000	430 per 1,000 (398- 471)	RR, 0.94 (0.87-1.03)	1,604 (5)	Moderateb
VTE; follow-up: 1 y	43 per 1,000	6 per 1,000 (1-52)	RR, 0.15 (0.02-1.2)	315 (1)	Moderatec
Major bleeding; follow-up: median 1 y	22 per 1,000	93 per 1,000 (41-213)	RR, 4.24 (1.85-9.68)	1,282 (4)	Moderated
Minor bleeding; follow-up: 1 y	79 per 1,000	264 per 1,000 (131-532)	RR, 3.34 (1.66-6.74)	851 (3)	Moderated
Health-related quality of life: not reported	Not estimable	Not estimable	Not estimable	…	Not estimable

See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of abbreviations.

^aThe basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

^bWe downgraded because of lack of blinding of patients and providers in four out of five studies, it was unclear whether allocation was concealed in two studies, and only one study clearly used ITT analysis.

^cWe downgraded because the precision of the estimate does not exclude a patient-important benefit (the lower limit of RR still suggests a benefit that might be relevant given the high baseline risk).

^dWe downgraded because lack of blinding of patients and providers in three out of four studies, it was unclear whether allocation was concealed in two studies, and only one study clearly used ITT analysis.