Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 468

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Meta-analysis Comparing Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins With Unfractionated Heparin in the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: Examining Some Unanswered Questions Regarding Location of Treatment, Product Type, and Dosing Frequency

Dolovich, Lisa R., Ginsberg, Jeffrey S., Douketis, James D., Holbrook, Anne M., Cheah, Gillian·2000·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and to examine current controversies in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (ie, setting, product type, and frequency of administration). METHODS: Data were abstracted from MEDLINE, HEALTH, previous reviews, personal files, clinical experts, and conference abstracts. Randomized controlled trials of patients diagnosed with acute VTE that compared LMWHs with UFH were included. Independent duplicate assessment was done for methodological quality and data extraction. Data are reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing LMWHs with UFH as determined by the random effects model. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference in risk between UFH and LMWHs for recurrent VTE (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.65-1.12]), pulmonary embolism (RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.64-1.62]), major bleeding (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.37-1.05]), minor bleeding (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.87-1.61]), and thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.45-1.62]). There was a statistically significant difference for risk of total mortality (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59-0.98]) in favor of LMWHs. Inpatient treatment may reduce the risk of major bleeding vs outpatient therapy. Once-daily therapy is as safe and effective as twice-daily therapy when compared indirectly. Different products could not be statistically compared, but qualitative analysis shows that there are no apparent differences in efficacy and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparins are at least as effective as UFH in preventing recurrent VTE. It is unlikely that LMWHs are superior in the treatment of VTE, but they do show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. No differences were seen in the development of recurrent VTE dependent on treatment setting. There were no apparent differences between once-daily and twice-daily therapy or among products. Inpatient therapy may be associated with less major bleeding; therefore, if LMWHs are given in the outpatient setting, patients should be rigorously monitored.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.160.2.181

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 468

Metadata

Authors
Dolovich, L. R., Ginsberg, J. S., Douketis, J. D., Holbrook, A. M., & Cheah, G.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2000-01-24
Volume
160
Issue
2
Pages
181
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085060329
Cited by
468
References
42
FWCI
22.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Meta-analysis Comparing Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins With Unfractionated Heparin in the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: Examining Some Unanswered Questions Regarding Location of Treatment, Product Type, and Dosing Frequency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.160.2.181
The paper
Dolovich, L. R., Ginsberg, J. S., Douketis, J. D., Holbrook, A. M., & Cheah, G. (2000). A Meta-analysis Comparing Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins With Unfractionated Heparin in the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: Examining Some Unanswered Questions Regarding Location of Treatment, Product Type, and Dosing Frequency. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.160.2.181

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.