Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26347594›Full record

ArticleThrombosis journal2015

The dogma of aspirin: a critical review of evidence on the best monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy.

Hernan Polo Friz, Mauro Molteni, Claudio Cimminiello

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Thrombosis journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Hernan Polo FrizDepartment of Medicine, Vimercate Hospital Azienda Ospedaliera di Desio e Vimercate, Vimercate, Italy.
Mauro MolteniDepartment of Medicine, Vimercate Hospital Azienda Ospedaliera di Desio e Vimercate, Vimercate, Italy.
Claudio CimminielloDepartment of Medicine, Vimercate Hospital Azienda Ospedaliera di Desio e Vimercate, Vimercate, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dual antiplatelet therapy based on the combination of an adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-receptor antagonist plus aspirin has demonstrated to be more effective in reducing the rate of major ischemic vascular events compared to aspirin monotherapy in some clinical settings. The current controversy on the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy should not conceal another major issue: the choice of the more appropriate antiplatelet monotherapy after the dual treatment phase. The aim of this article is to critically analyze the available evidence in this topic. Data from studies like CAPRIE, MATCH, PROFESS, CHANCE, DAPT and others, raise questions as why antiplatelet monotherapy after the dual phase should only be based on aspirin, in spite of a lack of evidence surprisingly not highlighted by key opinion leaders and experts. We conclude that, whether ADP-receptor antagonist rather than aspirin may be proposed as monotherapy seems not only have no answer but also not place in the current specialists' analysis, as if a dogmatic approach were prevalent. Perhaps the time for an open debate on these topics is ripe.

Indexed as

AspirinClopidogrelEvidence-based practicePlatelet aggregation inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID26347594
PMCPMC4561422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.