ArticlePloS one2015
Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer. A Benefit and Harm Analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of aspirin for primary prevention of cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Old drugs, new challenges: reassigning drugs for cancer therapies.Cellular & molecular biology letters · 2025Review
- Optimal risk thresholds for prescribing statins as primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Iranian general population: a benefit-harm modelling study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- What's the harm? Results of an active surveillance adverse event reporting system for chiropractors and physiotherapists.PloS one · 2024Article
- Exposure to Commonly Used Drugs and the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Cancers · 2023Review
- Can Aspirin Use Be Associated With the Risk or Prognosis of Bladder Cancer? A Case-Control Study and Meta-analytic Assessment.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Overcoming cancer therapeutic bottleneck by drug repurposing.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2020Review
- Article
- Perioperative events influence cancer recurrence risk after surgery.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2018Review
- Aspirin-Mediated Acetylation Protects Against Multiple Neurodegenerative Pathologies by Impeding Protein Aggregation.Antioxidants & redox signaling · 2017Article
- Impact of Transfusion on Cancer Growth and Outcome.Cancer growth and metastasis · 2016Review
- NOSH-aspirin (NBS-1120), a novel nitric oxide- and hydrogen sulfide-releasing hybrid has enhanced chemo-preventive properties compared to aspirin, is gastrointestinal safe with all the classic therapeutic indications.Biochemical pharmacology · 2015Article
- Article
- The role of geographical ecological studies in identifying diseases linked to UVB exposure and/or vitamin D.Dermato-endocrinologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAspirin is widely used for prevention of cardiovascular disease. In recent years randomized trials also suggested a preventive effect for various types of cancer. We aimed to assess, in a quantitative way, benefits and harms of aspirin for primary prevention of both cardiovascular disease and cancer for a general US population between 40 and 85 years of age.
methodsWe used the Gail/National Cancer Institute approach for assessing benefits and harms. This approach provides a probability that a treatment is more beneficial than harmful and incorporates multiple outcomes, the importance of these outcomes, considers different outcome risks and treats mortality as a competing risk. Our main outcomes were the risks of seven types of cancer, myocardial infarction, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding. We obtained effect estimates from recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and used baseline risks from the Centers for Disease Control. We conducted four sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of different assumptions about outcome risks and preferences and considered the sampling variation of the effect estimates for aspirin.
resultsThe main analysis as well as the sensitivity analyses showed that aspirin has more benefits than harms. In the main analysis, the index (positive if number of prevented events > excess number of harm events over 10 years per 1,000 persons) ranged from 2 (95% CI 0.0 to 11.8; in women age 45 to 54 years) to 8 (95% CI -0.1 to 83.7; in men age 65 to 74 years). In the sensitivity analyses, the index was also positive for all age categories suggesting more benefits than harms.
conclusionThis study suggests an overall benefit of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer based on population-based data. For individual preventive counseling, additional benefit harm analyses should explore which individuals should or should not take aspirin based on their risk profile for cardiovascular, cancer and gastrointestinal outcomes and based on their outcome preferences. Thereby, risk-stratified and preference-sensitive prevention could become a reality.
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.