Key result
The authors express concern that a systematic review comparing LMWH with UFH for VTE management is biased against UFH because only 13% of included studies used weight-based UFH dosing.
Why the study?
Does weight-based low-molecular-weight heparin improve efficacy and safety compared to weight-based intravenous unfractionated heparin in patients with venous thromboembolism?
Population
Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE)
Comparison
Weight-based low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs Weight-based intravenous unfractionated heparin
Design
Editorial
Authors
Loading...
The letter raises concerns that systematic reviews comparing LMWH to UFH for VTE may be biased if they do not specifically compare weight-based dosing regimens for both.
Does weight-based low-molecular-weight heparin improve efficacy and safety compared to weight-based intravenous unfractionated heparin in patients with venous thromboembolism?
The letter raises concerns that systematic reviews comparing LMWH to UFH for VTE may be biased if they do not specifically compare weight-based dosing regimens for both.
Umscheid et al. (2007) conducted a letter in Venous thromboembolism (VTE). Weight-based low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs. Weight-based intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) was evaluated. The authors express concern that a systematic review comparing LMWH with UFH for VTE management is biased against UFH because only 13% of included studies used weight-based UFH dosing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: