ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative study of four platelet function tests conducted using two systems in neuroendovascular patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Confirming the antiplatelet effects of P2Y12 inhibitors is clinically important; although various methods exist for evaluating such antiplatelet effects, standard protocols are currently unavailable. We compared four platelet function tests in neuroendovascular patients performed based on two systems: (i) ADP-induced platelet aggregation level (APAL) and (ii) 10 µM ADP maximum aggregation (MA) using CN-6000, and (iii) P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) as well as (iv) %inhibition using VerifyNow. Retrospective data of all 124 patients (median age 72 [26-92] years; 58.9% male) who received periprocedural antiplatelet therapy for elective neuroendovascular treatments between September 2020-December 2023 were evaluated. Blood samples were acquired the day before, immediately (1-3 days), and 1 month postoperatively, and during bleeding or thrombotic events. The results revealed changes over time in PRU, %inhibition, and APAL values, but not in 10 µM ADP MA. The correlation coefficient for PRU, the most widely used test in this setting, was higher with APAL (r = 0.55, p < 0.01) than with 10 µM ADP MA (r = 0.42, p < 0.01). An APAL result of 8.3 was equivalent to a PRU value of 240. In conclusion, APAL may provide more reliable monitoring of antiplatelet effects than 10 µM ADP MA-based monitoring and is worthy of further evaluation.
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.