ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2020
Efficacy and safety of clopidogrel and aspirin do not differ in patients with stable ischemic stroke.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2020. 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.
- Outstanding research paper awards of the Journal of the Chinese Medical Association in 2019.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2020Article
- Drug for heart is applicable to liver: Is it possible?Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 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
backgroundThe current study compared the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel vs aspirin in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke (IS).
methodsWe included patients from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database who were aged between 20 and 80 years, had their first ever IS, had no diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, and had not used an oral anticoagulant before the index IS between 2002 and 2010. We excluded patients who died or were admitted to a hospital due to acute myocardial infarction, recurrent IS, or major bleeding within 3 months of IS. Patients were then classified into clopidogrel as aspirin users. Propensity score matching was adopted to select clopidogrel and aspirin groups with similar baseline characteristics (n = 8457 vs 16,914, mean follow-up period of 2.1 years and 1.9 years, respectively). Conditional Cox proportional hazard regression was used to compare risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, recurrent stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and major bleeding in clopidogrel users and aspirin users.
resultsThe risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, recurrent stroke, and acute myocardial infarction did not differ between clopidogrel and aspirin users. Subgroup analyses revealed that the results were consistent regardless of age, disease severity, or comorbidity.
conclusionAccording to real-world data, the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel and aspirin for secondary prevention of stable IS did not differ.
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.