Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 380

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial

Open access
Sholzberg, Michelle, Tang, Grace H, Rahhal, Hassan, AlHamzah, Musaad, Kreuziger, Lisa Baumann, Áinle, Fionnuala Ní, Alomran, Faris, Alayed, Khalid, Alsheef, Mohammed, AlSumait, Fahad, Pompilio, Carlos Eduardo, Sperlich, Catherine, Tangri, Sabrena, Tang, Terence, Jaksa, Peter, Suryanarayan, Deepa, Almarshoodi, Mozah, Castellucci, Lana A, James, Paula D, Lillicrap, David, Carrier, Marc, Beckett, Andrew, Colovos, Christos, Jayakar, Jai, Arsenault, Marie-Pier, Wu, Cynthia, Doyon, Karine, Andreou, E Roseann, Dounaevskaia, Vera, Tseng, Eric K, Lim, Gloria, Fralick, Michael, Middeldorp, Saskia, Lee, Agnes Y Y, Zuo, Fei, da Costa, Bruno R, Thorpe, Kevin E, Negri, Elnara Márcia, Cushman, Mary, Jüni, Peter·2021·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. Design: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. Setting: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. Participants: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). Interventions: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m 2 . At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). Conclusions: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085 .

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 · 10.1136/bmj.n2400

Cites

36 of 36 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 36 references

Cited by

See all 380

Metadata

Authors
Sholzberg, M., Tang, G. H., Rahhal, H., AlHamzah, M., Kreuziger, L. B., Áinle, F. N., Alomran, F., Alayed, K., Alsheef, M., AlSumait, F., Pompilio, C. E., Sperlich, C., Tangri, S., Tang, T., Jaksa, P., Suryanarayan, D., Almarshoodi, M., Castellucci, L. A., James, P. D., Lillicrap, D., Carrier, M., Beckett, A., Colovos, C., Jayakar, J., Arsenault, M.-P., Wu, C., Doyon, K., Andreou, E. R., Dounaevskaia, V., Tseng, E. K., Lim, G., Fralick, M., Middeldorp, S., Lee, A. Y. Y., Zuo, F., da Costa, B. R., Thorpe, K. E., Negri, E. M., Cushman, M., & Jüni, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-10-14
Volume
375
Pages
n2400
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3205387447
Cited by
380
References
36
FWCI
26.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.n2400
The paper
Sholzberg, M., Tang, G. H., Rahhal, H., AlHamzah, M., Kreuziger, L. B., Áinle, F. N., Alomran, F., Alayed, K., Alsheef, M., AlSumait, F., Pompilio, C. E., Sperlich, C., Tangri, S., Tang, T., Jaksa, P., Suryanarayan, D., Almarshoodi, M., Castellucci, L. A., James, P. D., . . . Jüni, P. (2021). Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2400

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.