ArticlePharmacogenomics2018
Does cardiology hold pharmacogenetics to an inconsistent standard? A comparison of evidence among recommendations.
Article in Pharmacogenomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The need of a multicomponent guiding approach to personalize clopidogrel treatment.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2021Pooled it
- Cardiovascular prescriber attitudes to pharmacogenomics: a survey by the ESC working group on cardiovascular pharmacotherapy.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Article
- Clinical Implementation of Pharmacogenomics and Drug-Drug Interaction Screening in a German Academic Teaching Hospital and Outpatient Follow-Up.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Pharmacogenetics of P2YPharmacotherapy · 2023Review
- The genetics of drug-induced QT prolongation: evaluating the evidence for pharmacodynamic variants.Pharmacogenomics · 2022Review
- Moving Pharmacogenetics Into Practice: It's All About the Evidence!Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021Review
- Prevalence and types of inconsistencies in clinical pharmacogenetic recommendations among major U.S. sources.NPJ genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Pharmacogenomics.Lancet (London, England) · 2019Review
- Pharmacogenomic Testing: Clinical Evidence and Implementation Challenges.Journal of personalized medicine · 2019Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current guideline recommendations for pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) contradict the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and the US FDA. The AHA/ACC recommends against routine pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel because no randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that testing improves patients' outcomes. However the AHA/ACC and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend other pharmacogenetic tests in the absence of randomized controlled trials evidence. Using clopidogrel as a case example, we compared the evidence for other pharmacogenetic tests recommended by the AHA/ACC and NCCN. In patients that received percutaneous coronary intervention, the evidence supporting pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel is stronger than other pharmacogenetic tests recommended by the AHA/ACC and NCCN.
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.