ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022
Rationale and Design of LAPIS: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Aspirin in Elderly Chinese Patients.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction and evaluation of a nomogram model for predicting the risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia in elderly patients with acute ischemic stroke.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- The efficacy and safety of lower-dose aspirin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the elderly: an interim analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although aspirin can effectively reduce the occurrence of atherothrombosis, it is significantly associated with increased bleeding, with elderly individuals being at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases(CVDs) and hemorrhage. While the adverse effects of aspirin can be reduced by using the lowest effective dose, its optimal dose remains undetermined in the elderly Chinese population with both higher cardiovascular and bleeding risks. This study aims to assess the current status of aspirin therapy in real-world clinical settings as well as investigate the efficacy and safety of different doses of aspirin intake (≤ 50 mg/d and > 50 mg/d) for CVD prevention and management in elderly Chinese individuals. Patients and Methods: The Low-dose Aspirin for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the Elderly Study (LAPIS) is a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study. At least 10,000 people aged ≥ 60 years who require long-term aspirin therapy will be recruited. The effectiveness outcome is a composite of major cardiovascular events(MACEs), including nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, arteriosclerotic disease requiring surgery or intervention, nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death (excluding intracranial hemorrhage). The safety outcome is a composite of the first occurrence of fatal bleeding, major bleeding and minor bleeding. Information on the incidence of aspirin-associated gastrointestinal adverse events will also be collected for safety analyses. Outcome measurements will be performed at intervals of 30 days, 3 months, 6 months and then every 6 months for the next 3 years. Conclusion: The results of the LAPIS study will ascertain the efficacy and safety of different doses of aspirin for the prevention and management of CVD, thereby providing evidence to determine the optimal evidence-based dose of aspirin therapy in Chinese elderly individuals. Trial Registration: ChiCTR1900021980 (chictr.org.cn). Registered on March 19, 2019.
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.