Summary of findings 7. Aspirin (ASA) compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents: 6 months follow‐up.
| Aspirin (ASA) compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents: 6 months follow‐up | |||||
| Population: ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Setting: outpatient Intervention: ASA prophylaxis Comparison: DOAC prophylaxis | |||||
| Outcomes | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | |
| Risk with DOAC | Risk difference with ASA | ||||
| All‐cause mortality ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Symptomatic deep vein thrombosis ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Major bleeding ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Minor bleeding follow‐up: 6 months | 8 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | RR 5.00 (0.31 to 79.94) | Low | |
| 1 per 1000 3 | 4 more per 1000 (1 fewer to 79 more) | ||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||||
1Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Allocation not concealed and lack of blinding. 2Downgraded by two levels due to very serious risk of bias. Very low number of events and sample size. 3There were zero events in the control arm.