Key result
Subcutaneous heparin for venous thrombosis lacks specific quantitative results in this truncated abstract.
Why the study?
Anticoagulation is widely accepted for pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis treatment, but evidence from properly controlled prospective studies is very limited and existing trials have design deficiencies.
Although anticoagulation is almost universally accepted as the preferred treatment for pulmonary embolism and for venous thrombosis in the lower extremities, its use is for the most part based on anecdotes and retrospective clinical surveys; data from properly controlled prospective studies are very few. By today's standards, the most frequently cited trials of anticoagulant drugs in pulmonary embolism1 , 2 are deficient in design, and the evidence supporting anticoagulant treatment for deep-vein thrombosis is equally unsatisfactory. When modern diagnostic methods have been employed, the purpose has usually been to compare anticoagulation for venous thrombosis with treatment by thrombolytic agents rather than with . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edwin W. Salzman (1982) studied Venous thrombosis. Subcutaneous Heparin was evaluated. The truncated abstract discusses subcutaneous heparin for venous thrombosis but reports no quantitative results or specific study findings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: