Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22462627›Full record

ReviewDrugs & aging2012

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in the elderly: current status and future directions.

Stephanie A Ward, Lisa Demos, Barbara Workman, John J McNeil

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs & aging, 2012. 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie A WardMonash Ageing Research Centre (MONARC), The Kingston Centre, Cheltenham, VIC, Australia. Stephanie.ward@monash.edu
Lisa Demos
Barbara Workman
John J McNeil
Monash University · AUKingston CentreMonash Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of aspirin in the secondary prevention of occlusive cardiovascular events has now been well established. Given this, aspirin in primary prevention has been the focus of several large trials and subsequent meta-analyses over the past 3 decades, and yet the issue remains controversial. Recent studies in populations with high baseline risk - such as diabetics and those with asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease - have not found the expected benefits of aspirin on cardiovascular endpoints, which contrasts with earlier studies that reported a reduced relative risk for outcomes such as myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke, but not for mortality. Furthermore, in healthy populations, the absolute risk reduction conferred by aspirin is small and needs to be balanced against the risk of a major haemorrhage. Older adults have a higher risk for cardiovascular events and therefore might represent the group in which aspirin for primary prevention could deliver the greatest absolute benefit, yet at the same time, the elderly bear an increased vulnerability to major haemorrhage, including haemorrhagic stroke. It is also not known whether older adults experience the same risk reduction from aspirin as middle-aged individuals. The current evidence base does not sufficiently clarify whether aspirin for primary prevention confers a meaningful net benefit in the elderly.

Indexed as

AgedAspirinCardiovascular DiseasesHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAspirin

Identifiers

PMID22462627
OpenAlexW1511576980

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.