SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2021
Statistical reanalysis of vascular event outcomes in primary and secondary vascular prevention trials.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome After Mild Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- Bleeding with intensive versus guideline antiplatelet therapy in acute cerebral ischaemia.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Transcriptome analysis revealed the mechanism of exogenous silicon alleviating allelopathic inhibition of cinnamic acid on soybean seedlings.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Optimising the analysis of vascular prevention trials: Re-Assessment of the TARDIS trial, the first prevention trial to adopt an ordinal primary outcome measure.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Rationale and design of a randomised double-blind 2×2 factorial trial comparing the effect of a 3-month intensive statin and antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute mild ischaemic stroke or high-risk TIA with intracranial or extracranial atherosclerosis (INSPIRES).Stroke and vascular neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVascular prevention trials typically use dichotomous event outcomes although this may be inefficient statistically and gives no indication of event severity. We assessed whether ordinal outcomes would be more efficient and how to best analyse them.
methodsChief investigators of vascular prevention randomised controlled trials that showed evidence of either benefit or harm, or were included in a systematic review that overall showed benefit or harm, shared individual participant data from their trials. Ordered categorical versions of vascular event outcomes (such as stroke and myocardial infarction) were analysed using 15 statistical techniques and their results then ranked, with the result with the smallest p-value given the smallest rank. Friedman and Duncan's multiple range tests were performed to assess differences between tests by comparing the average ranks for each statistical test.
resultsData from 35 trials (254,223 participants) were shared with the collaboration. 13 trials had more than two treatment arms, resulting in 59 comparisons. Analysis approaches (Mann Whitney U, ordinal logistic regression, multiple regression, bootstrapping) that used ordinal outcome data had a smaller average rank and therefore appeared to be more efficient statistically than those that analysed the original binary outcomes.
conclusionsOrdinal vascular outcome measures appear to be more efficient statistically than binary outcomes and provide information on the severity of event. We suggest a potential role for using ordinal outcomes in vascular prevention trials.
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.