ArticleNederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde2018
[Weight-dependent dosing of aspirin; the pharmacological and cardiological perspective].
Article in Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent meta-analysis by Rothwell and colleagues, presented in The Lancet, of studies using aspirin as primary prevention showed that the effectiveness of the medication was weight-dependent. We discuss the results from both a pharmacological and cardiological perspective to assess the conclusions of this study. The observed result in the meta-analysis could possibly be explained by applying pharmacological principles; however, from a cardiological point of view the extent to which it has an influence on clinical practice is questionable. Notably, the included studies were conducted relatively long ago and results are, therefore, difficult to translate to a more contemporary population; furthermore, it is important to note that in current cardiology practice aspirin is not indicated as primary prevention. Nonetheless, given the complex interaction between patient-related factors and medication in the current population with multiple comorbidities, the present study provides food for thought regarding personalization of therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30500120W2916147496What 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.