Table 17.
—[Section 4.4] Summary of Findings: Should Heparin Compared With No Heparin Be Used for Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Patients With Cancer With Central Venous Catheters?114
| Outcomes | Illustrative Comparative Risksa (95% CI) |
Relative Effect (95% CI) | No. of Participants (Studies) | Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) | |
| Assumed Risk, No Heparin | Corresponding Risk, Heparin | ||||
| Death |
65 per 1,000 |
55 per 1,000 (34-89) |
RR, 0.85 (0.53-1.37) |
1,192 (5) |
Moderateb-d |
| Symptomatic DVT |
49 per 1,000 |
26 per 1,000 (14-51) |
RR, 0.54 (0.28-1.05) |
1,173 (6) |
Moderateb-d |
| Major bleeding |
5 per 1,000 |
3 per 1,000 (1-24) |
RR, 0.68 (0.1-4.78) |
891 (4) |
Moderateb-d |
| Infection |
71 per 1,000 |
65 per 1,000 (35-119) |
RR, 0.91 (0.49-1.68) |
626 (3) |
Moderateb,c |
| Thrombocytopenia |
66 per 1,000 |
56 per 1,000 (32-96) |
RR, 0.85 (0.49-1.46) |
836 (3) |
Moderateb-d |
| Quality of life: not reported | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | … | Not estimable |
See Table 4 for expansion of abbreviations.
The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
Allocation clearly concealed in three of the six studies. Four studies blinded patients and providers and all studies blinded outcome adjudicators. Three studies had no problem with incomplete data. None of the studies was suspected of selective reporting. Two studies clearly used ITT.
Relatively small number of events.
CI includes both values suggesting no effect and values suggesting either benefit or harm.