Studies were selected for inclusion in the systematic review based on the selection criteria presented in .
Supplemental Issues
The literature search was performed by an information specialist using a peer-reviewed literature search strategy.
Published literature was identified by searching the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (1946–) with in-process records and daily updates via Ovid; Embase (1974–) via Ovid; and PubMed. The search strategy consisted of both controlled vocabulary, such as the National Library of Medicine’s MeSH (Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), and keywords. The main search concepts were Xarelto, rivaroxaban, venous thromboembolism, DVT, and PE.
No methodological filters were applied to limit retrieval by publication type. Where possible, retrieval was limited to the human population. Retrieval was not limited by publication year or by language. Conference abstracts were excluded from the search results.
The initial search was completed on June 12, 2013. Regular alerts were established to update the search until the meeting of the Canadian Drug Expert Committee on October 16, 2013. Regular search updates were performed on databases that do not provide alert services.
Grey literature (literature that is not commercially published) was identified by searching relevant sections of the CADTH Grey Matters checklist (http://www.cadth.ca/en/resources/finding-evidence-is/grey-matters), which includes the websites of regulatory agencies, health technology assessment agencies, clinical trial registries, and professional associations. Google and other Internet search engines were used to search for additional web-based materials. These searches were supplemented by reviewing the bibliographies of key papers and through contacts with appropriate experts. In addition, the manufacturer of the drug was contacted for information regarding unpublished studies.
Two CADTH Common Drug Review (CDR) clinical reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion in the review based on titles and abstracts, according to the predetermined protocol. Full-text articles of all citations considered potentially relevant by at least one reviewer were acquired. Reviewers independently made the final selection of studies to be included in the review, and differences were resolved through discussion. Included studies are presented in Table 3; excluded studies (with reasons) are presented in Appendix 3.
