SynthesisJournal of evidence-based medicine2024
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Low-Dose Platelet Inhibitors in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of off-label low-dose compared with standard-dose antiplatelet agents in patients with coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis.Open heart · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy, safety, and costs of nine Chinese patent medicines for the treatment of angina pectoris in CHD.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal low-dose antiplatelet agents in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) had not been determined. The objective of this study was to compare the impact of different low-dose antiplatelet agents on cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding risks in patients with CHD.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, WanFang Data, and China Biology Medicine. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with CHD treated with different low-dose platelet aggregation inhibitors were included. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials Risk was used to assess risk of bias in RCTs. A Bayesian random network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as effect estimates in R 4.2.2 software and Stata 15.0. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in NMA framework.
resultsSixteen RCTs involving 6350 patients were included. All participants were treated with a recommended dose of aspirin plus a low or standard dose of P2Y12 receptor antagonist. Low-level evidence indicated the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar among low doses of prasugrel, ticagrelor, standard doses of prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel. Low- to moderate-level evidence suggested there was no difference in bleeding risk among low dose of prasugrel, ticagrelor, clopidogrel compared to standard dose of prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel. NMA showed that low dose of prasugrel had the highest probability of being the best intervention in terms of MACE, myocardial infarction, and bleeding events leading to discontinuation.
conclusionBased on low-level evidence, low dose of prasugrel combined with standard dose of aspirin can be recommended for patients with CHD, low dose of ticagrelor was similar in terms of MACE and bleeding compared with standard dose of P2Y12 receptor antagonist. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42023438376.
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.