ArticleJournal of trauma and injury2026
Weight-based dosing for low-molecular-weight heparin administration to achieve optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of trauma and injury, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVenous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a major cause of morbidity in trauma patients. Enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), is widely used for VTE prevention; however, the optimal dosing strategy has not been established. This meta-analysis provides the most comprehensive comparison to date of weight-based (WB) versus fixed-dose (FD) enoxaparin regimens for achieving effective prophylaxis in trauma patients.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science were searched, yielding 653 studies, of which 29 met the inclusion criteria. Systematic reviews, database studies, preclinical studies, and meta-analyses were excluded. The primary outcomes were the proportions of patients achieving prophylactic anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) levels. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and bleeding events.
resultsA total of 4,183 patients in the FD group and 563 patients in the WB group were included. WB dosing achieved higher rates of initial prophylaxis (86.5% vs. 46.8%; odds ratio [OR], 7.27) and ever-prophylaxis (95.6% vs. 71.0%; OR, 8.87). WB dosing was associated with a lower incidence of DVT (1.8% vs. 5.0%; OR, 0.34) and a nonsignificant reduction in PE (0.4% vs. 1.2%; OR, 0.29). Bleeding events were more frequent with WB dosing (3.0% vs. 1.2%; OR, 2.26). Proportional meta-analysis similarly demonstrated higher pooled proportions of initial prophylaxis (89.5% vs. 42.7%, P<0.01) and ever-prophylaxis (95.7% vs. 77.6%, P<0.01) with WB dosing. WB strategies showed a lower pooled DVT incidence (1.7% vs. 3.4%, P=0.06) and significantly fewer PE events (0% vs. 0.6%, P<0.01). No significant difference in pooled bleeding rates was observed (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P=0.69).
conclusionsWeight-based enoxaparin dosing was more effective than fixed dosing for achieving prophylactic anti-Xa levels and reducing DVT in trauma patients. Although bleeding events were more frequent in some cohorts, pooled analyses showed no significant increase in bleeding risk. Individualized assessment of bleeding risk remains essential.
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.