Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12030663›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002

Thrombosis prevention trial: follow-up study of practical implications.

N Fasey, P J Brennan, T W Meade, MRC General Practice Research Framework. Medical Research Council

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N FaseyMRC Epidemiology and Medical Care Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London.
P J Brennan
T W Meade
MRC General Practice Research Framework. Medical Research Council
MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of randomised controlled trials on subsequent practice has only occasionally been assessed. Doing so is particularly necessary when unusual and possibly controversial treatments are being used. The aim of this study was to assess the practical implications of the results of the placebo-controlled primary prevention thrombosis prevention trial, in which the active treatment regimens were combined warfarin and aspirin, warfarin alone, and aspirin alone. Both active agents were given in low doses. Decisions on post-trial management were sought about men who continued with randomly-allocated treatment until the trial ended. The results of the trial appeared to have influenced decisions about future management. While aspirin was clearly the most frequent choice, a regimen involving warfarin was also used for a substantial proportion of men. Prior experience of acceptability, effectiveness, and safety probably played a significant part in decisions to continue with or switch to a warfarin-containing regimen. The findings may provide a measure of reassurance about the value of oral anticoagulation in other settings, particularly atrial fibrillation where, despite the results of trials showing major reductions in stroke, anticoagulation is underused.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsAspirinDouble-Blind MethodFamily PracticeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMalePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsThrombosisWarfarinAnticoagulantsAspirinPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID12030663
PMCPMC1314240
OpenAlexW141672871

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.