MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2570744704 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.907.907

Low Molecular Weight Heparin and Bleeding in Patients with Severe Renal Failure: A Meta-Analysis.

2005· article· en· W2570744704 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Lim, Francesco Dentali, John W. Eikelboom, Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLow molecular weight heparinRenal functionRelative riskConfidence intervalNumber needed to harmInternal medicineHeparinCochrane LibraryUrologySurgeryNumber needed to treat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Dose adjustment or monitoring of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is commonly recommended in patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≤ 30 ml/min) but little evidence supports this recommendation. Purpose: To compare the risk of major bleeding in LMWH-treated patients with CrCl ≤ 30 ml/min versus > 30 ml/min using standard weight-adjusted therapeutic LMWH doses, empirically adjusted LMWH doses and prophylactic LMWH doses. Data sources: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), reference lists and contact with experts. Study selection: Observational or subgroups of randomized studies that included non-dialyzed patients with varying degrees of renal function who were treated with LMWH and which reported CrCl and major bleeding. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on patient characteristics, renal function, LMWH treatment and major bleeding. The pooled relative risk (RR) of major bleeding in patients with CrCl ≤ 30 versus > 30 ml/min was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method. Data synthesis: In 12 studies involving 4971 patients (10 studies of 4741 patients using enoxaparin; 2 studies of 230 patients using tinzaparin), LMWH significantly increased the risk of major bleeding in patients with CrCl ≤ 30 compared with > 30 ml/min (5.0% vs. 2.4%, RR 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46 to 3.74; P = 0.0004; number needed to harm [NNH] = 38). When analyzed according to LMWH preparation, increased major bleeding was evident in studies of standard weight-adjusted therapeutic dose enoxaparin (8.3% vs. 2.4%, RR 2.96; 95% CI: 1.63 to 5.37, NNH = 17) but not in studies using empirically adjusted enoxaparin doses (0.9% vs. 1.9%, RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.23 to 4.97), P for heterogeneity = 0.82. There were insufficient studies using tinzaparin and prophylactic doses of enoxaparin. Limitations: Only 2 LMWH preparations were evaluated and only 2 studies used tinzaparin. Data are observational and the potential for confounding cannot be excluded. Conclusions: Non-dialysis dependent patients with CrCl ≤ 30 ml/min who are treated with therapeutic doses of enoxaparin have an increased risk of major bleeding. Empiric dose reduction of enoxaparin may reduce the risk of bleeding and merits further evaluation. No conclusions can be drawn regarding other LMWHs.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.039
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→