ReviewCureus2026
Antithrombotic Drug Eruptions in Dermatology Practice: Selection Bias, Clinical Phenotypes, and Diagnostic Approaches.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antithrombotic agents are among the most frequently prescribed medications in elderly patients and are essential for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Although cutaneous adverse reactions associated with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents are generally considered uncommon, dermatologists frequently encounter these medications when evaluating patients presenting with pruritic eruptions. This apparent discrepancy may be explained by differences in patient populations. While cardiologists and neurosurgeons manage all patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, dermatologists evaluate a selected population enriched for cutaneous symptoms. This review summarizes the spectrum of cutaneous adverse reactions associated with major antithrombotic agents, including warfarin, heparins, aspirin, ticlopidine, clopidogrel, cilostazol, prasugrel, and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Reported reactions range from common hemorrhagic manifestations to delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions; severe cutaneous adverse reactions, such as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS/DIHS), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), vasculitis, and skin necrosis. Particular emphasis is placed on drug-specific dermatologic phenotypes and diagnostic approaches, including drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation testing, patch testing, and clinicopathological correlation. In addition, Japanese case reports published between 1980 and 2024 are reviewed and integrated with the international literature. These data suggest that antithrombotic agents should not be regarded as a homogeneous dermatologic risk category. Instead, each drug class exhibits characteristic cutaneous reaction patterns that may assist in the differential diagnosis of these reactions in clinical practice. Recognition of these drug-specific phenotypes may facilitate earlier diagnosis, improve interdisciplinary communication, and optimize the management of suspected antithrombotic drug eruptions.
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.