A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Use of Rivaroxaban as Thromboprophylaxis Following Bariatric Surgery

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram

• 

  Fig. 2. Visualisation of risk of bias results using Rob 2 for RCTs. For RoB 2, each domain was rated as "Low risk," "Some concerns," or "High risk" according to Cochrane guidance

• 

  Fig. 3. Visualisation of risk of bias results using NOS for cohort studies. Studies were classified as having a low risk of bias and high methodological quality if they scored 7 to 9 points on the NOS. A score of 5 to 6 points indicated moderate quality and was categorised as having some concerns regarding risk of bias. Studies scoring less than 5 points were considered to have a high risk of bias and low methodological quality

• 

  Fig. 4. A comparative descriptive analysis of adverse events between the rivaroxaban and control arms across several outcome categories, expressed as percentages of the total number patients in each group (n = 1859 in rivaroxaban arm and n = 1410 in control arm)

• 

  Fig. 5. Forest plot comparing rivaroxaban and control groups for thrombotic adverse events as primary outcomes in thromboprophylaxis following bariatric surgery

• 

  Fig. 6. Forest plot comparing rivaroxaban and control groups for bleeding adverse events as secondary outcomes in thromboprophylaxis following bariatric surgery

• 

  Fig. 7. Forest plot comparing long-course to short-course duration of rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after bariatric surgery showing ORs with 95% CIs for various adverse outcomes. An OR > 1 suggests the event is more likely with long-course prophylaxis; OR < 1 suggests the event is more likely in the short-course group. (* Modified Haldane-Anscombe (mHA) corrections were made only to the crosstabulations that had 0 in one of their cells and are marked with an asterisk [20].)