Observational studyJournal of human hypertension2015
Suitability of antiplatelet therapy in hypertensive patients.
Observational study in Journal of human hypertension, 2015. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated with Non-Adherence to Drugs in Patients with Chronic Diseases Who Go to Pharmacies in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antiplatelet therapy (AT) is indicated in hypertensive patients with increased cardiovascular risk. The literature about the adequate or inadequate prescription of AT is scarce. We conducted a prospective descriptive study to quantify therapeutic inertia and non-guideline-recommended prescription (NGRP) of AT (aspirinor clopidogrel or both), and to assess associated factors, calculating the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) from multivariate models. In 2007-2009, 712 primary health-care hypertensive patients in a Spanish region were enrolled. Inertia was defined as the lack of an AT prescription, despite being indicated by guidelines, whereas NGRP was defined as AT prescription when there was no guideline recommendation. We also recorded cardiovascular variables. Inertia and NGRP were quantified for primary and secondary prevention. Of 108 patients in secondary prevention, 53 had inertia (49.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 39.6-58.5%). Associated profile: female (OR=0.460, P=0.091), no dyslipidemia (OR=0.393, P=0.048), no coronary heart disease (OR=0.215, P=0.001) and high diastolic blood pressure (OR=1.076, P=0.016). In primary prevention, NGRP was present in 69 of 595 patients (11.6%, 95% CI: 9.0-14.2%). Associated profile: male (OR=1.610, P=0.089), smoking (OR=2.055, P=0.045), dyslipidemia (OR=3.227, P<0.001) and diabetes (OR=2.795, P<0.001). Although certain factors were clearly associated with these phenomena much still remains to be learnt.
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.