The title of the article I chose was Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism. This article was published in 2017 to the Cochrane database of systematic reviews and was written by Robertson L Jones. This article is centered around a systematic review that included 29 randomized clinical control trials with a total of 10,390 participants with venous thromboembolism. Intervention included and initial treatment within the first 5-14 days with a fixed dose of subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin and adjusted dose of unfractionated heparin. The studies reported advantages of LMWH over UFH. One of the main advantages outlined in the article was route of administration which is more convenient and increased the mobility of patients with venous thromboembolism. Another advantage is that the pharmacokinetics are more predictable, this in return gets rid of the need for monitoring and dose adjustment.

     Due to these advantages as outlined by the article it can be stated that LMWH can be advocated as the standard therapy for people with confirmed venous thromboembolism. Even though the results of the study are promising there are also numerous issues as outlined by the study. To begin with only 25% of the participants in the review had a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, therefore it can be argued that more information is required before this is deemed true for this population. Another factor is that different preparations of LMWH were not considered in every study. One study in the article did this and showed difference in reduction of thrombus size amongst the different preparations. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to compare the different preparations and determine the efficacy and safety of individual. Low molecular weight heparins.