Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10174319›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1997

Is aspirin underused in myocardial infarction?

J M Arnau, A Agustí

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J M ArnauInstitut Català de Farmacologia, Service of Clinical Pharmacology, CSU Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. JMA@ICF.UAB.ES
A Agustí

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reviews the relevant published literature in order to assess whether aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) is underused in myocardial infarction (MI), taking into account: (i) the evidence of efficacy and safety from clinical trials; (ii) authoritative recommendations about its use; and (iii) published drug-utilisation studies. The use of low-dosage aspirin in the acute phase of MI, and as secondary prevention, should be recommended to all patients who do not have contraindications to the drug. This is a solid evidence-based recommendation with potential benefits that are, at least, similar to those obtained with other standard treatments. As this treatment is well tolerated and inexpensive, it is also assumed that net savings can be achieved. No conventionally used prophylactic aspirin regimen seems to be free from the risk of serious gastrointestinal toxicity. This is especially important in primary prevention, in which the benefits are small; there is, as yet, no clear evidence that aspirin is indicated for routine use in patients at low risk of occlusive vascular events. We have identified 21 published drug-utilisation studies, and the potential underuse of aspirin in MI was not properly assessed in most of them. In these studies, fairly high aspirin prescription rates were usually documented. However, it seems clear that there is room for improvement, and that a significant proportion of patients who could have benefited from aspirin did not receive it or received less well-studied and more costly drugs. The prescription rates for other drugs with proven efficacy have been lower, and the potential underuse greater, than those documented for aspirin.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAspirinDrug UtilizationHumansMyocardial InfarctionAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAspirin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.