Our meta-analysis: ''Primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with solid tumors'', was published on line in November 2013 [1]. We are writing to respond to comments made in a letter to the editor referencing our work.The abstracted and analyzed information in our metaanalysis was obtained independently by 2 reviewers. In the year since our initial abstraction and analysis, similar studies have found equivalent results to the question of primary thrombosis prevention in outpatients with cancer. Most recently, in a meta-analysis by DiNisio et al., including patients with all types of cancer the use of preventive low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) (RR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.38-0.75) [2]. This estimate is concordant with ours (OR 0.53; 95 %CI 0.41-0.70) despite small differences in methodology [1]. Note the risk ratio and odd ratio pooled point estimate were the same. Indeed, odd ratio is known to be an adequate estimate of risk ratio when the events are not very common [3]. In meta-analyses, due to mathematical advantages odds ratio are often used over risk ratios to standardize results of different trials [4], as we elected to do in ours. Although we acknowledge that there are important differences in the interpretation of risk ratios and odds ratios, and that the appropriateness of which to use depends on study design, our use of odd ratios was adequate.