ReviewOpen forum infectious diseases2022
Efficacy and Safety of Intensified Versus Standard Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Open forum infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colchicine and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2022Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Intensified vs Standard Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- A Literature Review of Pathophysiology, Clinical Manifestations, Medications and Optimal Dosage, Outpatient, and Post-hospitalization Use of Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Patients.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- Higher Dose Anticoagulation Cannot Prevent Disease Progression in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomedicines · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on nonfatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods: We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) vs prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results: Eleven RCTs were included (N = 5873). Intensified vs prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .79-1.10]). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, .49-1.44]; Conclusions: Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend toward reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs.
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.