Question · asked by 1 review
Low molecular weight heparin vs control: Minor bleeding
- Population
- children with a CVC
- Intervention
- Low molecular weight heparin
- Comparison
- control
- Outcome
- Minor bleeding
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Does low molecular weight heparin prevent central venous catheter‐related thrombosis vs control Minor bleeding ( · children with a CVC Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of central venous catheter‐related thrombosis in children (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 813 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of central venous catheter‐related thrombosis in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Low molecular weight heparin vs no LMWH · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters · 1 review
- Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters · 1 review
- Low molecular weight heparin vs no prophylaxis · adults undergoing KA · 1 review
- Low molecular weight heparin vs unfractionated heparin · adults with kidney failure treated with long‐term HD · 1 review
- Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) · Patients with cancer requiring long‐term anticoagulation for VTE · 0 reviews
- Low molecular weight heparin vs No active treatment (control) · preventing VTE in adults undergoing KA · 0 reviews
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.