ArticleBMJ open2019
Dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Pooled it
- The predictive value of the ARC-HBR criteria for in-hospital bleeding risk following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is routinely given to patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting; however, there is ongoing debate about the optimal duration, especially in specific patient groups. In the proposed systematic review, we intend to assess the optimal duration of DAPT following PCI with stenting, with a focus on clinically relevant patient subgroups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a comprehensive search of the published literature for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of extended DAPT (>12 months) compared with short-term DAPT (6-12 months) following PCI with stenting (bare metal or drug eluting). ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP will also be searched to identify ongoing and completed clinical trials. Two independent reviewers will select studies for inclusion, and the risk of bias will be assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome of interest is death (all-cause, cardiovascular, non-cardiovascular). Secondary outcomes are bleeding (major, minor, gastrointestinal), urgent target vessel revascularisation, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke and stent thrombosis. Subgroup data will be sought for patients with prior myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome at presentation and diabetes, and based on smoking status and age group. Data will be analysed by random-effects meta-analysis, and separate analyses will be performed for patient subgroups. Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to investigate the effect of individual P2Y12 inhibitors at different DAPT durations longer than 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence of the benefits and harms associated with extending DAPT beyond 12 months following PCI with stenting and the effects on clinically important subgroups. The results of this review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the optimal treatment duration of DAPT following PCI with stenting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42018082587.
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.