Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010
|
Sign up to set email alerts
Recombinant Factor VIIa concentrate versus plasma derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors
Abstract: Although the main conclusion should be the need for further randomised controlled trials, we conclude that both rFVIIa and aPCC can be used to treat bleeding in haemophiliacs with inhibitors.
Search citation statements
Order By: Relevance
Paper Sections
Select...
35
7
2
1
Citation Types
2
30
1
2
Year Published
Range
2010
20102026
2026Publication Types
Select...
39
3
2
Relationship
5
39
Authors
Journals
Cited by 44 publications
(35 citation statements)
References 28 publications
2
30
1
2
Order By: Relevance
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
“…Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings. Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Insufficient reporting of the study population in terms of severity and treatment limits the interpretations of this review.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
“…Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings. Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Insufficient reporting of the study population in terms of severity and treatment limits the interpretations of this review.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The results of the present study cannot be directly compared with those of two recent meta-analyses of studies reporting on inhibitor development in PUPs with severe haemophilia A, mainly because all of them only reported indirect comparisons (22,23). Interestingly, these meta-analyses did not observe differences in inhibitor development between concentrates in prospective studies, nor could they identify differences in study design explaining these findings.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Studies
contrasting
confidence: 77%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…659 The relative effectiveness of rFVIIa and aPCC for the treatment of acute bleeding in haemophilia patients with inhibitors was investigated by Cochrane reviews. 650,665 Similar haemostatic effects for rFVIIa and aPCC were reported, without increasing thromboembolic risk. In contrast, a Bayesian meta-regression indicated rFVIIa as being more effective in the treatment of joint bleeds in patients with inhibitors.…”
Section: Haemophilia a And B Recommendations
mentioning
confidence: 62%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
“…Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings. Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Insufficient reporting of the study population in terms of severity and treatment limits the interpretations of this review.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The results of the present study cannot be directly compared with those of two recent meta-analyses of studies reporting on inhibitor development in PUPs with severe haemophilia A, mainly because all of them only reported indirect comparisons (22,23). Interestingly, these meta-analyses did not observe differences in inhibitor development between concentrates in prospective studies, nor could they identify differences in study design explaining these findings.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Studies
contrasting
confidence: 77%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…659 The relative effectiveness of rFVIIa and aPCC for the treatment of acute bleeding in haemophilia patients with inhibitors was investigated by Cochrane reviews. 650,665 Similar haemostatic effects for rFVIIa and aPCC were reported, without increasing thromboembolic risk. In contrast, a Bayesian meta-regression indicated rFVIIa as being more effective in the treatment of joint bleeds in patients with inhibitors.…”
Section: Haemophilia a And B Recommendations
mentioning
confidence: 62%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
“…Most studies in this review were observational cohort studies and did not set out hypotheses to evaluate measurement properties which may explain why many received indeterminate or negative ratings. Nevertheless, this review supports Iorio and colleagues' [8,9] conclusions regarding the dearth of evidence in this area. Insufficient reporting of the study population in terms of severity and treatment limits the interpretations of this review.…”
Section: Limitations and Risk Of Bias Of Review
supporting
confidence: 84%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The results of the present study cannot be directly compared with those of two recent meta-analyses of studies reporting on inhibitor development in PUPs with severe haemophilia A, mainly because all of them only reported indirect comparisons (22,23). Interestingly, these meta-analyses did not observe differences in inhibitor development between concentrates in prospective studies, nor could they identify differences in study design explaining these findings.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Studies
contrasting
confidence: 77%
Abstract
Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…659 The relative effectiveness of rFVIIa and aPCC for the treatment of acute bleeding in haemophilia patients with inhibitors was investigated by Cochrane reviews. 650,665 Similar haemostatic effects for rFVIIa and aPCC were reported, without increasing thromboembolic risk. In contrast, a Bayesian meta-regression indicated rFVIIa as being more effective in the treatment of joint bleeds in patients with inhibitors.…”
Section: Haemophilia a And B Recommendations
mentioning
confidence: 62%