Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27264221›Full record

ArticleAmerican heart journal2016

Protocol for analyses of adverse event data from randomized controlled trials of statin therapy.

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration

Open access · hybridFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in American heart journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. RNAi technique, how far is it from pediatrics?Pediatric investigation · 2017
    Article
  15. Statin withdrawal in people with dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Review
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

1 author.

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U137686849Medical Research Council MC_UU_12026/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration was originally established to conduct individual participant data meta-analyses of major vascular events, cause-specific mortality, and site-specific cancers in large, long-term, randomized trials of statin therapy (and other cholesterol-modifying treatments). The results of the trials of statin therapy and their associated meta-analyses have shown that statins significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events without any increase in the risk of nonvascular causes of death or of site-specific cancer, but do produce small increases in the incidence of myopathy, diabetes, and, probably, hemorrhagic stroke. The CTT Collaboration has not previously sought data on other outcomes, and so a comprehensive meta-analysis of all adverse events recorded in each of the eligible trials has not been conducted. This protocol prospectively describes plans to extend the CTT meta-analysis data set so as to provide a more complete understanding of the nature and magnitude of any other effects of statin therapy.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsMeta-Analysis as TopicCholesterolHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignCholesterolHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID27264221
PMCPMC4906243
OpenAlexW2287366392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.