ArticleEJHaem2025
Therapeutic Versus Non-Therapeutic Dose Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Article in EJHaem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequential Development of Iliopsoas Hematoma and Abscess in an Elderly Patient With COVID-19: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Abnormal coagulation and thrombotic complications prompted many guidelines to recommend thromboprophylaxis for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, but the dose required for prophylaxis remains unclear. This systematic review (SR) analyses the safety and efficacy of therapeutic dose anticoagulation (TDA) versus non-therapeutic dose anticoagulation (NDA) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: According to the Results: In this SR of 18 studies, TDA was shown to reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70, 0.99) in COVID-19 infection. TDA also reduced thrombosis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.48, 0.72) but increased major bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.29, 2.69). A stratified analysis according to severity revealed that, in non-critical patients, TDA resulted in mortality benefit (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67, 0.94). In critical patients, TDA did not affect all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89, 1.18) but reduced thrombosis (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48, 0.86) and increased major bleeding (RR 1.85; 95% CI 1.06, 3.23). Conclusion: TDA significantly reduced all-cause mortality and thrombosis in non-critical COVID-19 patients at the expense of increased major bleeding. In critical COVID-19, this mortality benefit was not observed.
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.