ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Revisiting low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism: from pharmacology to precision dosing and implementation.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the increasing use of direct oral anticoagulants, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) remains important in venous thromboembolism (VTE) care when oral therapy is unsuitable, temporarily unsafe, or difficult to manage, particularly during pregnancy, cancer-associated thrombosis, renal impairment, and peri-procedural care. Objective: To review how LMWH pharmacology informs practical decisions about dosing, anti-factor Xa monitoring, treatment interruption and restart, and switching between anticoagulants. Methods: We performed a narrative review of contemporary guidelines, randomized trials, systematic reviews, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, drug labels, and laboratory medicine evidence, focusing on literature published from 1 January 2015 to 18 December 2025, with selected earlier sources retained for foundational pharmacologic principles. Results: LMWH can be used with standard fixed or weight-based dosing in many stable patients, but reassessment is needed when renal function, body weight, pregnancy physiology, cancer-related bleeding risk, critical illness, or procedural timing changes the relationship between dose and exposure. Anti-factor Xa testing should not be used routinely; it is most useful when sampling is standardized and the result can guide a specific action, such as dose adjustment, interval extension, treatment interruption, or switching to unfractionated heparin. Conclusion: LMWH remains useful when oral anticoagulants are difficult to use safely. Its clinical value depends on clear dose selection, renal-function reassessment, selective monitoring, planned interruption and restart, and timely switching when patient risk or treatment feasibility changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.