Question · asked by 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs no thromboprophylaxis: Major bleeding

Population
ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy
Intervention
Low molecular weight heparin
Comparison
no thromboprophylaxis
Outcome
Major bleeding

Low‐molecular‐weight heparin probably leads to higher major bleeding compared with no thromboprophylaxis (moderate certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 50%Moderate 1 · 50%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Low‐molecular‐weight heparin vs no thromboprophylaxis
Major bleeding · ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy
Low‐molecular‐weight heparin probably leads to higher major bleeding compared with no thromboprophylaxis (moderate certainty).
Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.63 [1.12, 2.35]15 studies · 7282 participantsModerate
Low molecular weight heparin vs no thromboprophylaxis
Major bleeding · ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy
Low molecular weight heparin showed no clear difference in major bleeding compared with no thromboprophylaxis (low certainty).
Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008500.PUB4, superseded
RR 1.44 [0.98, 2.11]13 studies · 6356 participantsLow

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy
2020 · 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.