ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Antithrombotic dose: Some observations from published clinical trials.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reduced-Dose Versus Full-Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Antithrombotic dose: Some observations from published clinical trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical doses of antithrombotics-antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents-need to balance efficacy and safety. It is not clear from the published literature how the doses currently used in clinical practice have been derived from preclinical and clinical data. There are few large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare outcomes with different doses vs placebo. For newer antithrombotics, RCT doses appear to have been chosen to maximise the probability of demonstrating noninferiority when compared to established agents such as warfarin or clopidogrel. Data from RCTs show that aspirin is an effective antithrombotic at doses below 75 mg daily, and that direct oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with coronary disease at doses 1/4 of those recommended in atrial fibrillation. Lower doses than those currently recommended are safer and still maintain substantial efficacy.
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.