Since then, four new TABLE 1 ] Summary of Findings: LMWH vs VKA for Long-Term Treatment of VTEa Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with VKA Risk Difference with LMWH (95% CI) All-cause mortality Moderatec because of risk of bias Noncancerd (from 2 fewer to 2 more) Nonmetastatic Cancerd (from 5 fewer to 6 more) Metastatic Cancerd (from 28 fewer to 35 more) Recurrent VTE Moderatee because of risk of bias Lowf (from 5 fewer to 15 fewer) Moderatef (from 14 fewer to 39 fewer) Highf (from 34 fewer to 98 fewer) Major bleeding Moderateg,h because of imprecision Lowi (from 9 fewer to 6 more) Highi (from 35 fewer to 26 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CATCH Comparison of Acute Treatments in Cancer Haemostasis; GRADE Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; LITE Long-term Innovations in Treatment program; LMWH low-molecular-weight heparin; RIETE Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad Tromboembolica; RR risk ratio; UFH unfractionated heparin; VKA vitamin K antagonist. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence: High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our con dence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our con dence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our con dence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. 