Question · asked by 0 reviews

Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA): Minor bleeding

Population
Patients with cancer requiring long‐term anticoagulation for VTE
Intervention
Low molecular weight heparin
Comparison
vitamin K antagonist (VKA)
Outcome
Minor bleeding

Low molecular weight heparin showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonist (low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist
Minor bleeding · patients with cancer requiring long‐term anticoagulation for VTE
Low molecular weight heparin showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonist (low certainty).
Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006650.PUB4, superseded
RR 0.89 [0.51, 1.55]4 studies · 1091 participantsLow
LMWH vs VKA
Minor bleeding · Patients with cancer requiring long‐term anticoagulation for VTE
LMWH showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with VKA (low certainty).
Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006650.PUB3, superseded
RR 0.85 [0.53, 1.35]4 studies · 1120 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer
2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedNot extractedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.