self‐management of oral anticoagulation vs usual care: Minor haemorrhage
self‐management of oral anticoagulation showed no clear difference in minor haemorrhage compared with standard care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
self‐management of oral anticoagulation vs standard care Minor haemorrhage · Patients on long‐term anticoagulant therapy (treatment duration longer than two months) irrespective of the indication… self‐management of oral anticoagulation showed no clear difference in minor haemorrhage compared with standard care (low certainty). Self‐monitoring and self‐management of oral anticoagulation (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.91 [0.47, 1.76] | 7 studies · 1862 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self‐monitoring and self‐management of oral anticoagulation 2016 · 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.