SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2022
High-dose versus low-dose venous thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acquired Hemophilia A after SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Case Report and an Updated Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of two heparin regimens for prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Major Bleeding Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
- Dynamic Assessment of Plasma von Willebrand Factor and ADAMTS13 Predicts Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Radiological lung sequelae, functional status and symptoms in older patients 3 and 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia.Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Observational
- Safety and Efficacy of Different Anticoagulant Doses for Patients with COVID-19 in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Increased Susceptibility for Thromboembolic Events versus High Bleeding Risk Associated with COVID-19.Microorganisms · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitalized COVID-19 patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Standard doses of anticoagulant prophylaxis may not be sufficiently effective for the prevention of VTE. The objective of this systematic-review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose versus low-dose thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. MATERIAL AND
methodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose with low-dose thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of VTE and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding.
resultsA total of 5470 patients from 9 RCTs were included. Four trials included critically ill patients, four non-critically ill patients, and one included both. VTE occurred in 2.9% of patients on high-dose and in 5.7% of patients on low-dose thromboprophylaxis (relative risk [RR] 0.53; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.41-0.69; I DISCUSSION: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, high-dose thromboprophylaxis is more effective than low-dose for the prevention of VTE but increases the risk of major bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.