ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2017
Dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for patients with long-term oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and subclinical acute brain injury caused by invasive cardiovascular procedures.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) after coronary intervention.
backgroundThe optimal regimen remains controversial for patients taking OAC after coronary intervention.
methodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies including data of triple therapy (TT) versus OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy for patients requiring OAC after coronary intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE). The safety outcome was major bleeding.
resultsFourteen studies with 32,825 patients were included. Among prospective studies, patients with TT had a trend toward a higher risk of major bleeding [odds ratios (OR): 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-2.49,
conclusionsFor patients requiring OAC after coronary intervention, OAC plus clopidogrel may bring more clinical net benefit than TT, whereas OAC plus aspirin should be the last choice. More large-size randomized control trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.