Evidence
This page contains a snapshot of featured content which highlights evidence addressing key clinical questions including areas of uncertainty. Please see the main topic reference list for details of all sources underpinning this topic.
BMJ Best Practice evidence tables
Evidence tables provide easily navigated layers of evidence in the context of specific clinical questions, using GRADE and a BMJ Best Practice Effectiveness rating. Follow the links at the bottom of the table, which go to the related evidence score in the main topic text, providing additional context for the clinical question. Find out more about our evidence tables.
This table is a summary of the analysis reported in a Cochrane Clinical Answer that focuses on the above important clinical question.
Confidence in the evidence is very low or low where GRADE has been performed and there may be no difference in effectiveness between the intervention and comparison for key outcomes. However, this is uncertain and new evidence could change this in the future.
Population: Adults with acute DVT
Intervention: Home-based treatment with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)
Comparison: Hospital-based treatment with LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH)
| Outcome | Effectiveness (BMJ rating)? | Confidence in evidence (GRADE)? |
|---|---|---|
Recurrence of venous thromboembolism (follow‐up: 3-12 months) | Favours intervention | Low |
Quality of life (follow‐up: 7 days-6 months) | See note ᵃ | Very Low |
Mortality (follow‐up: 3-12 months) | No statistically significant difference | Low |
Major bleeding (follow‐up: 2 weeks-12 months) | No statistically significant difference | Low |
Minor bleeding (follow‐up: 2 weeks-12 months) | No statistically significant difference | Low |
Venous gangrene | - | None of the studies identified by the review assessed this outcome |
Note The Cochrane Clinical Answer (CCA) noted that only one trial of the seven reviewed treated all participants allocated to home treatment at home. Participants in the other six studies who were allocated to home treatment and who only received home treatment ranged from 23% to 75%. It also noted that home treatment versus hospital treatment was not the only difference between groups in five studies which also compared LMWH with UFH. ᵃ Results reported narratively. Overall, the CCA reports no clear difference in quality of life between home treatment and hospital-based treatment. See the CCA for more details.
This evidence table is related to the following section/s:
Cochrane Clinical Answers
Cochrane Clinical Answers (CCAs) provide a readable, digestible, clinically focused entry point to rigorous research from Cochrane systematic reviews. They are designed to be actionable and to inform decision making at the point of care and have been added to relevant sections of the main Best Practice text.
- How does low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) compare with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for adults with an acute medical illness and reduced mobility?
- What are the benefits and harms of compression stockings for airline passengers?
- How does home treatment compare with inpatient treatment in people with deep vein thrombosis?
- How does fondaparinux compare with low molecular weight heparin for people with acute symptomatic deep vein thrombosis?
- How do different warfarin loading doses affect the ability to reach the target international normalized ratio in people newly prescribed anticoagulation?
- How do low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K agonists (VKAs), and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compare for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with cancer?
- What are the effects of compression stockings for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome in adults with deep vein thrombosis?
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer