ReviewEuropean cardiology2021
2020 Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations on Antithrombotic Management for High-risk Chronic Coronary Syndrome.
Review in European cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management for Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements.International journal of clinical practice · 2023Pooled it
- Major cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with acute and chronic coronary syndrome.Open heart · 2026Article
- Position Statement on Antiplatelet Therapy for East Asians With Coronary Artery Disease: 2025 Update.JACC. Asia · 2025Review
- COVID-19 Is a Coronary Artery Disease Risk Equivalent and Exhibits a Genetic Interaction With ABO Blood Type.Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2024Article
- Incidence, Prediction, and Outcomes of Major Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chinese Patients.JACC. Asia · 2022Article
- Performance of PRECISE-DAPT and Age-Bleeding-Organ Dysfunction Score for Predicting Bleeding Complication During Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Chinese Elderly Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Trade-off of major bleeding versus myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention.Open heart · 2022Article
- 2021 Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations on the Use of P2Y1European cardiology · 2021Review
- Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations on Dyslipidaemia.European cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The unique characteristics of patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) in the Asia-Pacific region, heterogeneous approaches because of differences in accesses and resources and low number of patients from the Asia-Pacific region in pivotal studies, mean that international guidelines cannot be routinely applied to these populations. The Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology developed these consensus recommendations to summarise current evidence on the management of CCS and provide recommendations to assist clinicians treat patients from the region. The consensus recommendations were developed by an expert consensus panel who reviewed and appraised the available literature, with focus on data from patients in Asia-Pacific. Consensus statements were developed then put to an online vote. The resulting recommendations provide guidance on the assessment and management of bleeding and ischaemic risks in Asian CCS patients. Furthermore, the selection of long-term antithrombotic therapy is discussed, including the role of single antiplatelet therapy, dual antiplatelet therapy and dual pathway inhibition therapy.
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.