Adverse events (Re‐operation for bleeding (reoperation for major bleeding within 30 days (yes/no))) · People with cancer with perioperative thromboprophylaxis
LMWH prophylaxis showed no clear difference in reoperation for bleeding compared with UFH prophylaxis (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intraoperative transfusion · People with cancer with perioperative thromboprophylaxis
1 finding from 1 review
Thrombosis · people with antiphospholipid antibodies and no history of thrombosis
1 finding from 1 review
Bleeding ‐ major/excessive · people with antiphospholipid antibodies and no history of thrombosis
1 finding from 1 review
Subcutaneous bruises · people with antiphospholipid antibodies and no history of thrombosis
ASA + high‐dose LMWH showed no clear difference in subcutaneous bruises compared with ASA + low‐dose LMWH or UFH (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
All‐cause mortality · people with antiphospholipid antibodies and no history of thrombosis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Quality of life · people with antiphospholipid antibodies and no history of thrombosis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Adverse events other than bleeding · people with antiphospholipid antibodies and no history of thrombosis
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
1 participants
GRADE not reported
Incidence of recurrent VTE1 after initial treatment (up to 15 days) · patients with venous thromboembolism.
LMWH probably leads to lower incidence of recurrent VTE1 after initial treatment (up to 15 days) compared with UFH (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Recurrent VTE · patients with venous thromboembolism.
LMWH probably leads to lower incidence of recurrent VTE1 (3 months compared with UFH (moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Reduction in thrombus size (pre‐ and post‐treatment venograms) · patients with venous thromboembolism.
LMWH may leads to lower reduction in thrombus size (pre‐ and post‐treatment venograms) compared with UFH (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Major bleeding · patients with venous thromboembolism.
LMWH probably leads to lower incidence of major haemorrhagic episodes (during initial treatment ‐… compared with UFH (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overall mortality (end of · patients with venous thromboembolism.
LMWH showed no clear difference in overall mortality (end of compared with UFH (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) · people undergoing surgical procedures and treated with UFH or LMWH for prophylaxis of thrombotic events lasting at least 5 days
The intervention may leads to lower heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures · people undergoing surgical procedures and treated with UFH or LMWH for prophylaxis of thrombotic events lasting at least 5 days
The intervention may leads to lower HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism · people undergoing surgical procedures and treated with UFH or LMWH for prophylaxis of thrombotic events lasting at least 5 days
The intervention may leads to lower HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review