The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE--To determine whether prophylactic treatment with low molecular weight heparin reduces the incidence of thrombosis in patients who have had general or orthopaedic surgery. DESIGN--Meta-analysis of results from 52 randomised, controlled clinical studies (29 in general surgery and 23 in orthopaedic surgery) in which low molecular weight heparin was compared with placebo, dextran, or unfractionated heparin. SUBJECTS--Patients who had had general or orthopaedic surgery. INTERVENTION--Once daily injection of a low molecular weight heparin compared with placebo, dextran, or unfractionated heparin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Incidence of deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major haemorrhages, and death. RESULTS--The results confirm that low molecular weight heparins are more efficacious for the prophylactic treatment of deep venous thrombosis than placebo (common odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.43; p < 0.001) and dextran (0.44, 0.30 to 0.65; p < 0.001). The results suggest that low molecular weight heparins are also more efficacious than unfractionated heparin (0.85, 0.74 to 0.97; p = 0.02), with no significant difference in the incidence of major haemorrhages (1.06, 0.93 to 1.20; p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS--Low molecular weight heparins seem to have a higher benefit to risk ratio than unfractionated heparin in preventing perioperative thrombosis. However, it remains to be shown in a suitably powered clinical trial whether low molecular weight heparin reduces the risk of fatal pulmonary embolism compared with heparin.
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
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.
Simes, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1986.4.10.1529 · Cited by 747
Cited by
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 · Cited by 2,282
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Egger, M., Jüni, P., Bartlett, C., Holenstein, F., & Sterne, J. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7010 · Cited by 1,181
Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1371 · Cited by 646
Metadata
- Authors
- Leizorovicz, A., Haugh, M. C., Chapuis, F. R., Samama, M. M., & Boissel, J. P.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1992-10-17
- Volume
- 305
- Issue
- 6859
- Pages
- 913-920
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2032253855
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 18.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.305.6859.913
- The paper
- Leizorovicz, A., Haugh, M. C., Chapuis, F. R., Samama, M. M., & Boissel, J. P. (1992). Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.305.6859.913
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.