ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2012
Role of antithrombotic agents in heart failure.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation with heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2018Review
- Medical management of stable coronary atherosclerosis.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite a vast body of research on antithrombotic therapy for patients with cardiac disease, there are few clinical settings where robust evidence of their benefit exists. Patients with heart failure often have vascular disease and atrial fibrillation contributing to their poor prognosis. For patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, anticoagulants are appropriate. For patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm, the weight of evidence suggests that doctors should generally avoid using any antithrombotic agent even if the patient has coronary artery disease. If there is a compulsion to treat, then there is less evidence of harm with clopidogrel or warfarin than with aspirin, although most receive aspirin. More research is required for this "evidence-light" problem. For those with the opportunity, engaging with a randomized trial is clinically and scientifically appropriate. The dilemma for such studies is the comparator. Should it be against or in addition to "standard of care" or both?
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.