Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 722

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Continuous Intravenous Heparin Compared with Intermittent Subcutaneous Heparin in the Initial Treatment of Proximal-Vein Thrombosis

Hull, Russell D., Raskob, Gary E., Hirsh, Jack, Jay, Richard M., Leclerc, Jacques R., Geerts, William H., Rosenbloom, David, Sackett, David L., Anderson, Christine, Harrison, Linda, Gent, Michael·1986·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

We performed a randomized double-blind trial comparing continuous intravenous heparin with intermittent subcutaneous heparin in the initial treatment of 115 patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Intermittent subcutaneous heparin as administered in this trial was inferior to continuous intravenous heparin in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism. The subcutaneous heparin regimen induced an initial anticoagulant response below the target therapeutic range in the majority of patients and resulted in a high frequency of recurrent venous thromboembolism (11 of 57 patients, 19.3 percent), which was virtually confined to patients with a subtherapeutic anticoagulant response. In contrast, continuous intravenous heparin induced a therapeutic anticoagulant response in the majority of patients and a low frequency of recurrent events (3 of 58 patients, 5.2 percent; P = 0.024); the recurrences were limited to patients with an initial subtherapeutic anticoagulant response. The results of this trial establish the efficacy of intravenous heparin in the treatment of proximal venous thrombosis and suggest a relation between the effectiveness of heparin and the levels of anticoagulation achieved; such a relation could explain the observed failure of the subcutaneous regimen.

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 · 10.1056/nejm198610303151801

Cites

15 of 15 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 15 references

Cited by

See all 722

Metadata

Authors
Hull, R. D., Raskob, G. E., Hirsh, J., Jay, R. M., Leclerc, J. R., Geerts, W. H., Rosenbloom, D., Sackett, D. L., Anderson, C., Harrison, L., & Gent, M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1986-10-30
Volume
315
Issue
18
Pages
1109-1114
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2073325230
Cited by
722
References
15
FWCI
22.15
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: Continuous Intravenous Heparin Compared with Intermittent Subcutaneous Heparin in the Initial Treatment of Proximal-Vein Thrombosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198610303151801
The paper
Hull, R. D., Raskob, G. E., Hirsh, J., Jay, R. M., Leclerc, J. R., Geerts, W. H., Rosenbloom, D., Sackett, D. L., Anderson, C., Harrison, L., & Gent, M. (1986). Continuous Intravenous Heparin Compared with Intermittent Subcutaneous Heparin in the Initial Treatment of Proximal-Vein Thrombosis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198610303151801

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.