ReviewPharmacogenomics and personalized medicine2023
Personalized Approaches to Antiplatelet Treatment for Cardiovascular Diseases: An Umbrella Review.
Review in Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical unaddressed limitations in PFT-guided antithrombotic therapy after PCI: implications for real-world practice and future research.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Timing, indications and transition patterns associated with cangrelor use in patients undergoing PCI.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin for Primary Prevention in High-Risk Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Personalized Treatment of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: The Value and Limitations of Predictive Models.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- One- versus three-month DAPT after everolimus-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients at high bleeding risk: results from the XIENCE Short DAPT programme.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Demographic diversity in platelet function and response to antiplatelet therapy.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2025Review
- Clinical Significance and Patterns of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Cardiovascular Patients: Focus on Low-Dose Aspirin and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone of antithrombotic prevention in patients with established atherosclerosis, since it has been proven to reduce coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral thrombotic events. However, the protective effect of antiplatelet agents is counterbalanced by an increase of bleeding events that impacts on patients' mortality and morbidity. Over the last years, great efforts have been made toward personalized antithrombotic strategies according to the individual bleeding and ischemic risk profile, aiming to maximizing the net clinical benefit. The development of risk scores, consensus definitions, and the new promising artificial intelligence tools, as well as the assessment of platelet responsiveness using platelet function and genetic testing, are now part of an integrated approach to tailored antithrombotic management. Moreover, novel strategies are available including dual antiplatelet therapy intensity and length modulation in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization, the use of P2Y
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.