Low molecular weight heparin vs no thromboprophylaxis: Clinically relevant bleeding
Low‐molecular‐weight heparin probably leads to higher clinically relevant bleeding compared with no thromboprophylaxis (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Low‐molecular‐weight heparin vs no thromboprophylaxis Clinically relevant bleeding · ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy Low‐molecular‐weight heparin probably leads to higher clinically relevant bleeding compared with no thromboprophylaxis (moderate certainty). Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 3.4 [1.2, 9.63] | 4 studies · 3105 participants | Moderate |
Low molecular weight heparin vs no thromboprophylaxis Clinically relevant bleeding · ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy Low molecular weight heparin probably leads to higher clinically relevant bleeding compared with no thromboprophylaxis (moderate certainty). Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008500.PUB4, superseded | RR 3.4 [1.2, 9.63] | 4 studies · 3105 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.