Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA): Thrombocytopenia
Low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) may leads to higher thrombocytopenia compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) Thrombocytopenia · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters Low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) may leads to higher thrombocytopenia compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (low certainty). Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006468.PUB5, superseded | RR 3.73 [2.26, 6.16] | 2 studies · 317 participants | Low |
LMWH vs VKA Thrombocytopenia · patients with thrombosis prophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters LMWH showed no clear difference in thrombocytopenia compared with VKA (low certainty). Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006468.PUB3, superseded | RR 5.17 [0.26, 103.21] | 1 study · 59 participants | Low |
LMWH vs VKA Thrombocytopenia · patients with thrombosis prophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters LMWH showed no clear difference in thrombocytopenia compared with VKA (low certainty). Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006468.PUB4, superseded | RR 5.17 [0.26, 103.21] | 1 study · 59 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters 2018 · 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.