MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969165345 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000000763

The Efficacy and Safety of Heparin in Patients With Sepsis

2014· review· en· W1969165345 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Zarychanski, Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Salmaan Kanji, Alexis F. Turgeon, Anand Kumar, Donald S. Houston, Emily Rimmer, Brett L. Houston, Lauralyn McIntyre, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Paul C. Hébert, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteUniversity of OttawaWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyCancerCare Manitoba
FundersInternational Anesthesia Research Society
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialSeptic shockClinical trialPlaceboSepsisRelative riskIntensive care medicineHeparinDisseminated intravascular coagulationConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of heparin in patients with sepsis, septic shock, or disseminated intravascular coagulation associated with infection. DESIGN: Systematic review and metaanalysis. DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to April 2014), conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently identified and extracted trial-level data from randomized trials investigating unfractionated or low molecular heparin administered to patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or disseminated intravascular coagulation associated with infection. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Risk of Bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed in duplicate using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Our primary outcome was mortality. Safety outcomes included hemorrhage, transfusion, and thrombocytopenia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials enrolling 2,637 patients. Eight trials were of unclear risk of bias and one was classified as having low risk of bias. In trials comparing heparin to placebo or usual care, the risk ratio for death associated with heparin was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.00; I2 = 0%; 2,477 patients; six trials; moderate strength of evidence). In trials comparing heparin to other anticoagulants, the risk ratio for death was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.78-2.18; I2 = 0%; 160 patients; three trials; low strength of evidence). In trials comparing heparin to placebo or usual care, major hemorrhage was not statistically significantly increased (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53-1.17; I2 = 0%; 2,392 patients; three trials). In one small trial of heparin compared with other anticoagulants, the risk of major hemorrhage was significantly increased (2.14; 95% CI, 1.07-4.30; 48 patients). Important secondary and safety outcomes, including minor bleeding, were sparsely reported. CONCLUSIONS: Heparin in patients with sepsis, septic shock, and disseminated intravascular coagulation associated with infection may be associated with decreased mortality; however, the overall impact remains uncertain. Safety outcomes have been underreported and require further study. Increased major bleeding with heparin administration cannot be excluded. Large rigorous randomized trials are needed to evaluate more carefully the efficacy and safety of heparin in patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.016
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations185
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207