MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029363723 · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1297173

Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparins in Children: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Single-Arm Studies

2011· review· en· W2029363723 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Bidlingmaier, Gili Kenet, Karin Kurnik, Prasad Mathew, Daniela Manner, Lesley Mitchell, Anne Krümpel, Ulrike Nowak‐Göttl

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisSystematic reviewLow molecular weight heparinIncidence (geometry)MEDLINEPopulationRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectConfidence intervalPediatricsInternal medicineSurgeryHeparin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the last two decades low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have gained increasing widespread use as anticoagulants in children. The use of LMWH has been implemented into clinical care even though there is a lack of firm evidence on the efficacy and safety of LMWH in this population due to the absence of sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials. In the absence of clinical trials, we performed a meta-analysis of available single-arm studies using LMWH in children. A systematic search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library) for studies published from 1980 to 2010 was conducted using keywords in combination both as MeSH terms and text words. Two authors independently screened citations and those meeting a priori defined inclusion criteria were retained. Data on year of publication, study design, country of origin, number of patients, ethnicity, venous thromboembolic events type, and frequency of recurrence and major bleedings were abstracted. Pooled incidence rates (IR) including 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) on efficacy and safety data of LMWH administration on primary prophylaxis, as well as on secondary prophylaxis in children following symptomatic thromboembolism (TE) were shown. We included 2251 pediatric patients derived from 35 single-arm studies from 12 study countries who were eligible for analysis in the present systematic review. Pooled incidence rates (95% CI) to develop first TE on primary prophylaxis, further TE event on LMWH secondary prophylaxis, or a major bleeding event on LMWH were 0.047 (0.023 to 0.091), 0.052 (0.037 to 0.073) for efficacy, and 0.054 (0.039 to 0.074) for safety (treatment data only), respectively. Efficacy and safety data are comparable with adult data. The present systematic review suggests that use of LMWH in children as primary prophylaxis and in treatment of symptomatic thrombosis is effective and safe. However, properly designed randomized controlled trials are needed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations59
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Thrombosis and HemostasisSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207