Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 29;2021(3):CD001689. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001689.pub4

Cornette 2002.

Study characteristics
Methods RCT
Participants 44 women were randomised.
Setting: authors from Belgium (no further details provided).
Study dates: not reported.
Inclusion criteria: women with full‐term singleton pregnancies admitted for elective caesarean section.
Exclusion criteria: women with known bleeding or coagulation disorders.
Interventions Group 1 (n = 22): preoperative, 0.3 mL nadroparin calcium (LMWH), administered 12 hours before elective caesarean birth.
Group 2 (n = 22): postoperative, 0.3 mL (2850 IU) nadroparin calcium, administered 12 hours after elective caesarean birth.
All women received the same fluid regimen before, during and after surgery. Women were allowed to drink freely 6 hours after surgery. It was not clear whether participants received any further doses of LMWH after initial dose.
Outcomes Review outcomes reported: none.
Other outcomes reported: Hb and haematocrit concentrations 12 hours before and 48 hours after surgery (as a substitute for blood loss).
Notes No outcomes included in the review analysis as outcomes were not relevant to the review. The power calculation was based on changes in Hb levels.
Funding sources: not reported.
Declarations of interest: not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described, quote: "randomly divided in two groups".
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk As above.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Blinding not possible due to nature of the intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk No detail of blinding of outcome assessors.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk No loss to follow‐up apparent.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No trial protocol to confidently assess selective reporting; furthermore, no relevant outcome data were reported.
Other bias Low risk No other obvious risk of bias identified.