↓ Skip to main content

Safety of low-molecular-weight heparin compared to unfractionated heparin in hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Safety of low-molecular-weight heparin compared to unfractionated heparin in hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Nephrology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12882-017-0596-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hind Harrak Lazrak, Émilie René, Naoual Elftouh, Martine Leblanc, Jean-Philippe Lafrance

Abstract

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been extensively studied and became the treatment of choice for several indications including pulmonary embolism. While their efficacy in hemodialysis is considered similar to unfractionated heparin (UFH), their safety remains controversial mainly due to a risk of bioaccumulation in patients with renal impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of LMWH when compared to UFH for extracorporeal circuit (ECC) anticoagulation. We used Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Trip database and NICE to retrieve relevant studies with no language restriction. We looked for controlled experimental trials comparing LMWH to UFH for ECC anticoagulation among end-stage renal disease patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Studies were kept if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: bleeding, lipid profile, cardiovascular events, osteoporosis or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Two independent reviewers conducted studies selection, quality assessment and data extraction with discrepancies solved by a third reviewer. Relative risk and 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean weighted difference (MWD) with 95% CI was used to pool continuous variables. Seventeen studies were selected as part of the systematic. The relative risk for total bleeding was 0.76 (95% CI 0.26-2.22). The WMD calculated for total cholesterol was -28.70 mg/dl (95% CI -51.43 to -5.98), a WMD for triglycerides of -55.57 mg/dl (95% CI -94.49 to -16.66) was estimated, and finally LDL-cholesterol had a WMD of -14.88 mg/dl (95% CI -36.27 to 6.51). LMWH showed to be at least as safe as UFH for ECC anticoagulation in chronic hemodialysis. The limited number of studies reporting on osteoporosis and HIT does not allow any conclusion for these outcomes. Larger studies are needed to evaluate properly the safety of LMWH in chronic hemodialysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 14%
Other 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 29 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,639,285
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#727
of 2,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,538
of 332,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#19
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.