Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37547931›Full record

SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Non-Critically Ill Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Awatif Hafiz, Hadeel Alkofide, Khalid Al Sulaiman, Hala Joharji, Sarah Aljohani, Khadijah A Sarkhi, Reem Alharbi, Ghazwa B Korayem, Mashael AlFaifi, Samiah Alsohimi and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Awatif HafizDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Hadeel AlkofideDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Khalid Al SulaimanPharmaceutical Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-5547-2043
Hala JoharjiOrgan Transplant Centre, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Sarah AljohaniPharmaceutical Care Services, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Khadijah A SarkhiPharmaceutical Care Services, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Reem AlharbiPharmaceutical Care Services, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ghazwa B KorayemDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mashael AlFaifiPharmaceutical Care Department, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Samiah AlsohimiPharmaceutical Care Services, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ohoud AljuhaniDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism is high in patients with COVID-19, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. The evidence that supports the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen in non-critically ill patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is still limited. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received standard thromboprophylaxis anticoagulation with intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for published studies until August 17th, 2022. We included studies on patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received thromboprophylaxis during their hospital stay. Patients who received standard prophylaxis dose "control group" were compared to patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis "intervention group". Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing seven studies involving a total of 1931 patients. The risk of all-cause thrombosis was not statistically different between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 20.21]). The risk of minor bleeding was reported to be lower in patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21, 1.97), while had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the standard prophylaxis (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.43, 4.61); however, did not reach the statistical significance. The overall risk for all hospital mortality favored the utilization of intermediate to high doses over the standard thromboprophylaxis dosing (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29, 0.75). In medically ill patients with COVID-19, there is no difference between standard and intermediate to high prophylaxis dosing regarding thrombosis and bleeding. However, it appears that intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens are linked to additional survival benefits.

Indexed as

COVID-19ThrombosisVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsHemorrhageHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansAnticoagulantsHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightanticoagulantsbleedingCOVID-19intermediate to high dosenon-critically illstandard dosethromboprophylaxisthrombosisVTE

Identifiers

PMID37547931
PMCPMC10408323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.