ArticleBlood advances2024
Guideline concordance of aspirin use for primary prevention in adult outpatients.
Article in Blood advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical pharmacology of antiplatelet drugs: implications for personalized therapy.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Patient Use and Perceptions of Primary Prevention Aspirin in the United States.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Global research trends and hotspots in aspirin studies (2014-2024): a bibliometric perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractRecent guidelines have recommended a reduced role for primary prevention aspirin use, which is associated with an increased bleeding risk. This study aimed to characterize guideline-discordant aspirin use among adults in a community care setting. As part of a quality improvement initiative, patients at 1 internal medicine and 1 family medicine clinic affiliated with an academic hospital were sent an electronic survey. Patients were included if they were at least 40 years old, had a primary care provider at the specified site, and were seen in the last year. Patients were excluded if they had an indication for aspirin other than primary prevention. Responses were collected from 15 February to 16 March 2022. Analyses were performed to identify predictors of primary prevention aspirin use and predictors of guideline-discordant aspirin use; aspirin users and nonusers were compared using Fisher exact test, independent samples t tests, and multivariable logistic regression. Of the 1460 patients sent a survey, 668 (45.8%) responded. Of the respondents, 132 (24.1%) reported aspirin use that was confirmed to be for primary prevention. Overall, 46.2% to 58.3% of primary prevention aspirin users were potentially taking aspirin, contrary to the guideline recommendations. Predictors of discordant aspirin use included a history of diabetes mellitus and medication initiation by a primary care provider. In conclusion, primary prevention aspirin use may be overutilized and discordant with recent guideline recommendations for approximately half of the patients, suggesting a need for aspirin deimplementation. These efforts may be best focused at the primary care level.
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.