Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11005933›Full record

ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2000

Clopidogrel and coronary stenting: what is the next question?

S A Moore, S R Steinhubl

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Complications of oral antiplatelet medications.Current cardiology reports · 2001
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

S A MooreDepartment of Cardiology, Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas 78236, USA.
S R Steinhubl
Wilford Hall Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Today, following coronary stenting, clopidogrel has largely replaced ticlopidine as part of combination antiplatelet therapy following coronary stenting primarily due to its better tolerability. While there is no randomized, blinded, efficacy trial of ticlopidine versus clopidogrel, there are ample data from a number of observational studies, randomized non-blinded trials, and a randomized blinded safety trial to prove that clopidogrel is not only safer than ticlopidine, but also at least as efficacious following stenting. With over 10,000 treated patients, pooled data suggest similar rates of stent thrombosis (clopidogrel 0.98% vs. ticlopidine 0.98%) and lower rates of major adverse cardiac events with clopidogrel (clopidogrel 1.63% vs. ticlopidine 4.52%, p<0.001), with a clear advantage for clopidogrel regarding adverse events (clopidogrel 5.91% vs. ticlopidine 9.75%, p<0.001). With clopidogrel's superior safety and at least equivalent efficacy, the question of "which thienopyridine?" post-stenting has been answered. Now the questions "how much?", "how soon?" and "how long?" must be addressed. The Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) trial is a multi-center, double-blind, randomized trial designed to answer these remaining questions. CREDO will evaluate the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel pretreatment versus no pretreatment, and prolonged (1 year), versus short-term (1 month) dual antiplatelet therapy in 2,000 patients undergoing planned or highly probable coronary intervention with a stent.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicClopidogrelHumansPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStentsThrombosisTiclopidineClopidogrelPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTiclopidine

Identifiers

PMID11005933
OpenAlexW165376753

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.