ArticleDiscoveries (Craiova, Romania)
Impact of the reporting source on Platelet Inhibition and Treatment Outcomes (PLATO) trial deaths.
Article in Discoveries (Craiova, Romania). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Central Event Adjudication on the PLATO Trial Results.Reviews 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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlatelet Inhibition and Clinical Outcomes (PLATO) was a multicenter, randomized double-blind trial assessing efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The reported mortality benefit of ticagrelor in the PLATO trial has been challenged for over decade, and never confirmed in later trials.
objectiveTo compare if there were any differences when deaths were reported to the FDAby the sponsors or by independent Contract Research Organizations (CRO).
methodsWe obtained the complete PLATO deaths dataset reported to the FDA and revealed that some events were inaccurately reported favoring ticagrelor. The entire FDA list contains precisely detailed 938 PLATO deaths. The CRO reported outcomes from the USA, Russia, Georgia, and most of Ukraine, while sites in 39 other countries were controlled by the trial sponsors. We compared vascular- (code "11"), non-vascular- (code "12"), and unknown (code "97") deaths triaged by the reporting source.
resultsOverall, most PLATO deaths were vascular (n=677), less non-vascular (n=159) andunexpectedly many of "other" (n=7) or "unknown" (n=95) origin reported either by sponsors (n=807) or CRO (n=131). The trial sponsors reported more clopidogrel deaths from vascular (313 vs.239), non-vascular (86 vs.58) and unknown (53 vs. 26) causes.In contrast, CRO-monitored sites reported significantly (72 vs. 53; p<0.01) more ticagrelordeaths than after clopidogrel from vascular (51 vs.39), non-vascular (8 vs.7) and unknown (10 vs. 4) causes.
conclusionDeaths were reported differently by sponsors and CRO within the same trial. Since some deaths were misreported by PLATO sponsors, only the CRO data seems mostly reliable. Among all countries, the CRO - reported PLATO-USA outcomes represent the largest and most realistic dataset of realistic evidence suggesting ticagrelor inferiority to clopidogrel for all primary endpoint components including vascular death.
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.