Trial reportImplementation science : IS2011
Reconsidering low-dose aspirin therapy for cardiovascular disease: a study protocol for physician and patient behavioral change.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01247454 (Risk Informed Intervention Development and Implementation of Safe Ambulatory Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Risk Informed Intervention Development and Implementation of Safe Ambulatory Care
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fall detection and pre-impact prediction technologies in older adults: a scoping review of translational maturity and public health integration.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Driven Ambulatory Aspirin Deprescribing Protocol.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2022Article
- An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation.Annual review of public health · 2017Review
- Aspirin overutilization for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Clinical epidemiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are often disparities between current evidence and current practice. Decreasing the gap between desired practice outcomes and observed practice outcomes in the healthcare system is not always easy. Stopping previously recommended or variably recommended interventions may be even harder to achieve than increasing the use of a desired but under-performed activity. For over a decade, aspirin has been prescribed for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and for patients with the coronary artery disease risk equivalents; yet, there is no substantial evidence of an appropriate risk-benefit ratio to support this practice. This paper describes the protocol of a randomized trial being conducted in six primary care practices in the Denver metropolitan area to examine the effectiveness of three interventional strategies to change physician behavior regarding prescription of low-dose aspirin.
methodsAll practices received academic detailing, one arm received clinician reminders to reconsider aspirin, a second arm received both clinician and patient messages to reconsider aspirin. The intervention will run for 15 to 18 months. Data collected at baseline and for outcomes from an electronic health record will be used to assess pre- and post-interventional prescribing, as well as to explore any inappropriate decrease in aspirin use by patients with known cardiovascular disease. DISCUSSION: This study was designed to investigate effective methods of changing physician behavior to decrease the use of aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease prevention. The results of this study will contribute to the small pool of knowledge currently available on the topic of ceasing previously supported practices.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01247454.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.