The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery
Abstract
Background: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have become routine thromboprophylaxis in general surgery. However, their actual clinical effect, its magnitude relative to that of unfractionated heparin (UFH), and the optimal dose are still debated. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed of all available randomized trials in general surgery comparing LMWH with placebo or no treatment, or with UFH. Results: Comparison versus placebo or no treatment confirmed that the significant reduction in asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) obtained with LMWH (n = 513; relative risk (RR) 0·28 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·14–0·54)) was associated with a significant reduction in clinical pulmonary embolism (n = 5456; RR 0·25 (0·08–0·79)) and clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) (n = 4890; RR 0·29 (0·11–0·73)), and a trend towards a reduction in overall mortality rate. Comparison versus UFH showed a trend in favour of LMWH, with a significant reduction in clinical VTE (P = 0·049), a trend also found for cancer surgery. LMWH at doses below 3400 anti-Xa units seemed to be as effective as, and safer than, UFH, while higher doses yielded slightly superior efficacy but increased haemorrhagic risk, including that of major haemorrhage. Conclusion: Asymptomatic DVT may be regarded as a reliable surrogate endpoint for clinical outcome in studies investigating thromboprophylaxis in general surgery. LMWH seems to be as effective and safe as UFH. Determination of the optimal dose regimen of LMWH for this indication requires further investigation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
VTE, Thrombophilia, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Pregnancy
Bates, S. M., Greer, I. A., Middeldorp, S., Veenstra, D. L., Prabulos, A.-M., & Vandvik, P. O. (2012) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.11-2300 · Cited by 1,525
Kyrle, P. A., & Eichinger, S. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)71880-8 · Cited by 616
Agnelli, G., Bergqvist, D., Cohen, A. T., Gallus, A. S., & Gent, M. (2005) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5154 · Cited by 337
Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight heparin for abdominal or pelvic surgery
Rasmussen, M. S., Jørgensen, L. N., & Wille-Jørgensen, P. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004318.pub2 · Cited by 316
Venous thromboembolism in the ICU: main characteristics, diagnosis and thromboprophylaxis
Minet, C., Potton, L., Bonadona, A., Hamidfar-Roy, R., Somohano, C. A., Lugosi, M., Cartier, J.-C., Ferretti, G., Schwebel, C., & Timsit, J.-F. (2015) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1003-9 · Cited by 270
Metadata
- Authors
- Mismetti, P., Laporte, S., Darmon, J.-Y., Buchmüller, A., & Decousus, H.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-07-01
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 913-930
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2036603576
- Cited by
- 649
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.43
- 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: Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01800.x
- The paper
- Mismetti, P., Laporte, S., Darmon, J.-Y., Buchmüller, A., & Decousus, H. (2001). Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01800.x
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.