SynthesisPloS one2016
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Trials to Ascertain Fatal Gastrointestinal Bleeding Events Attributable to Preventive Low-Dose Aspirin: No Evidence of Increased Risk.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mortality among patients due to adverse drug reactions that lead to hospitalization: a meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Self-administration of aspirin for acute chest pain-Does it prevent premature cardiovascular mortality?Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Article
- Aspirin and cancer treatment: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evidence: for and against.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Aspirin and cancer: biological mechanisms and clinical outcomes.Open biology · 2022Review
- Implications of the heterogeneity between guideline recommendations for the use of low dose aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2022Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Postdiagnosis Aspirin Use Associated With Decreased Biliary Tract Cancer-Specific Mortality in a Large Nationwide Cohort.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2021Article
- The efficacy and safety of acid suppressants for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in cardiac care unit patients.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Article
- Chemopreventive Agents After Pancreatic Resection for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Legend or Scientific Evidence?Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Aspirin and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analyses of 118 observational studies of aspirin and 18 cancers.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Review
- Efficacy of Aspirin in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases and Cancer in the Elderly: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Korea.Drugs & aging · 2020Article
- Low-dose aspirin and risk of upper/lower gastrointestinal bleeding by bleed severity: a cohort study with nested case-control analysis using primary care electronic health records from the United Kingdom.Annals of medicine · 2019Article
- Pros and Cons of Aspirin Prophylaxis for Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Kidney Transplantation and Review of Evidence.Advances in preventive medicine · 2019Review
- Weighing the Anti-Ischemic Benefits and Bleeding Risks from Aspirin Therapy: a Rational Approach.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2018Review
- Aspirin Prevention of Colorectal Cancer: Focus on NF-κB Signalling and the Nucleolus.Biomedicines · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAspirin has been shown to lower the incidence and the mortality of vascular disease and cancer but its wider adoption appears to be seriously impeded by concerns about gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Unlike heart attacks, stroke and cancer, GI bleeding is an acute event, usually followed by complete recovery. We propose therefore that a more appropriate evaluation of the risk-benefit balance would be based on fatal adverse events, rather than on the incidence of bleeding. We therefore present a literature search and meta-analysis to ascertain fatal events attributable to low-dose aspirin.
methodsIn a systematic literature review we identified reports of randomised controlled trials of aspirin in which both total GI bleeding events and bleeds that led to death had been reported. Principal investigators of studies in which fatal events had not been adequately described were contacted via email and asked for further details. A meta-analyses was then performed to estimate the risk of fatal gastrointestinal bleeding attributable to low-dose aspirin.
resultsEleven randomised trials were identified in the literature search. In these the relative risk (RR) of 'major' incident GI bleeding in subjects who had been randomised to low-dose aspirin was 1.55 (95% CI 1.33, 1.83), and the risk of a bleed attributable to aspirin being fatal was 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.80). In all the subjects randomised to aspirin, compared with those randomised not to receive aspirin, there was no significant increase in the risk of a fatal bleed (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41, 1.43).
conclusionsThe majority of the adverse events caused by aspirin are GI bleeds, and there appears to be no valid evidence that the overall frequency of fatal GI bleeds is increased by aspirin. The substantive risk for prophylactic aspirin is therefore cerebral haemorrhage which can be fatal or severely disabling, with an estimated risk of one death and one disabling stroke for every 1,000 people taking aspirin for ten years. These adverse effects of aspirin should be weighed against the reductions in vascular disease and cancer.
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.