IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208725.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The efficacy and safety of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis following caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Rui Yang
  • Xia Zhao
  • Yilei Yang
  • Xin Huang
  • Hongjian Li
  • Lequn Su

Abstract

Objective: Our purpose is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis following caesarean section (CS). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Then the systematic review was performed by analysing studies that met the eligibility criteria. Results: Seven studies with 1243 participants were included, including 6 RCTs and 1 prospective cohort. Results from the meta-analysis showed that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was associated with no obvious decrease in the risk of thrombus compared with UHF and negative control. However, LMWH was observed to be associated with a definite increase in the risk of bleeding or haematomas in comparison to negative control (RR: 8.47, CI: 1.52–47.11). Conclusion: According to current evidences, the efficacy of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis which increases the risk of bleeding or hematomas remains controversial.

Suggested Citation

  • Rui Yang & Xia Zhao & Yilei Yang & Xin Huang & Hongjian Li & Lequn Su, 2018. "The efficacy and safety of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis following caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208725
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208725
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208725
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208725&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208725?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208725. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.