links.lww.com/TA/B495

(1)

Supplemental Digital Content 5

eTable 5. Quality assessment for weight-based dosing regimens using GRADE methodology

Number of

Studies Study design Limitations Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations

Quality of Evidence VTE Incidence

5 Observational Serious¹ No serious

inconsistency No serious

indirectness No serious

imprecision None LOW ◯◯

⨁⨁

anti-Xa Concentration

6 Observational,

RCT Serious¹ No serious

imprecision Not Serious² LOW ◯◯

⨁⨁

Bleeding Complications

imprecision None LOW ◯◯

⨁⨁

1. Serious limitations include small sample size, single-center studies, loss to follow up. Additionally, Bickford et al.

(2013) was a one-arm prospective cohort which lacked a comparator group.

2. Most studies draw anti-Xa levels after the third dose of VTE chemoprophylaxis has been administered. Ludwig (2011) took measurements after the second and third doses. However, all included studies did use the same target range of 0.2-0.6 IU/mL.

(2)

Supplemental Digital Content 6

eTable 6. Quality assessment for weight-stratified dosing regimens using GRADE methodology

Number of

Studies Study design Limitations Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other

considerations Quality of Evidence VTE Incidence

imprecision None LOW

◯◯

⨁⨁

inconsistency

No serious indirectness

No serious

◯◯

⨁⨁

◯◯

⨁⨁

1. Small sample size.

(3)

Supplemental Digital Content 7

eTable 7. Quality assessment for BMI-stratified dosing regimens using GRADE methodology

Number of

4 Observational;

Nonrandomized trial Serious¹ No serious

◯◯

⨁⨁

3 Observational;

◯◯

⨁⨁

Bleeding Complications 4

Observational;

◯◯

⨁⨁

1. Small sample size; Mushtaq (2015) had only 4 patients in their pilot pediatric study.

Supplemental Digital Content 8

(4)

eTable 8. Quality assessment for continuous infusion dosing regimens using GRADE methodology

Number of

imprecision None VERY LOW

◯◯◯

⨁

◯◯◯

⨁

inconsistency

No serious indirectness

No serious

◯◯◯

⨁

1. Both studies lacked comparator groups. Shepherd et al. (2004) had a sample size of only 19 patients.

Supplemental Digital Content 9

(5)

eTable 9. Quality assessment for fixed-dose regimens using GRADE methodology

Number of Studies Study design Limitations Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other

26 Observational,

RCTs Serious¹ No serious

◯◯

⨁⨁

10 Observational,

◯◯

⨁⨁

23 Observational,

◯◯

⨁⨁

1. Small sample size; loss to follow up.