ReviewBiomedicines2022
Higher Dose Anticoagulation Cannot Prevent Disease Progression in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Acupuncture on Cognitive Function in Patients With Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Implementation of higher dose (HD) thromboprophylaxis has been considered in patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to compare HD to standard dose (SD) thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021284808). We searched for randomised controlled studies (CENTRAL, Embase, Medline and medRxviv) that compared HD to SD anticoagulation in COVID-19 and analysed outcomes such as mortality, thrombotic events, bleedings, and disease progression. The statistical analyses were made using the random effects model. Fourteen articles were included (6253 patients). HD compared with SD showed no difference in mortality (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.54−1.28]). The use of HD was associated with a decreased risk of thrombosis (OR 0.58 [95% CI 0.44−0.76]), although with an increased risk of major bleeding (OR 1.64 [95% CI 1.25−2.16]). The cohort with D-dimer < 1 mg/mL showed no effect (OR 1.19 [95% CI 0.67−2.11]), but in the case of D-dimer > 1 mg/mL, a tendency of lower risk in the HD group was observed (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.31−1.00]). The need for intubation in moderately ill patients showed a nonsignificant lower likelihood in the HD group (OR 0.82 [95% CI 0.63−1.08]). We cannot advocate for HD in all COVID-19 patients, although it shows some nonsignificant benefits on disease progression in those with elevated D-dimer who do not need ICU admission.
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.