Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26988347›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Antiplatelet regimens in the long-term secondary prevention of transient ischaemic attack and ischaemic stroke: an updated network meta-analysis.

Peng-Peng Niu, Zhen-Ni Guo, Hang Jin, Ying-Qi Xing, Yi Yang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cilostazol for intermittent claudication.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Drugs in secondary stroke prevention.Australian prescriber · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review of Toyoda K,Surgical neurology international · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peng-Peng NiuDepartment of Neurology, Neuroscience Center, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Zhen-Ni GuoDepartment of Neurology, Neuroscience Center, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Hang JinDepartment of Neurology, Neuroscience Center, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Ying-Qi XingDepartment of Neurology, Neuroscience Center, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Yi YangDepartment of Neurology, Neuroscience Center, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
First Hospital of Jilin University · CNJilin University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the comparative efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet regimens in patients with prior non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack.

designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: As on 31 March 2015, all randomised controlled trials that investigated the effects of antiplatelet agents in the long-term (≥ 3 months) secondary prevention of non-cardioembolic transient ischaemic attack or ischaemic stroke were searched and identified. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure of efficacy was serious vascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and vascular death). The outcome measure of safety was any bleeding.

resultsA total of 36 randomised controlled trials (82,144 patients) were included. Network meta-analysis showed that cilostazol was significantly more effective than clopidogrel (OR 0.77, 95% credible interval 0.60-0.98) and low-dose (75-162 mg daily) aspirin (0.69, 0.55-0.86) in the prevention of serious vascular events. Aspirin (50 mg daily) plus dipyridamole (400 mg daily) and clopidogrel reduced the risk of serious vascular events compared with low-dose aspirin; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, low-dose aspirin was as effective as higher daily doses. Cilostazol was associated with a significantly lower bleeding risk than most of the other regimens. Moreover, aspirin plus clopidogrel was associated with significantly more haemorrhagic events than other regimens. Direct comparisons showed similar results as the network meta-analysis.

conclusionsCilostazol was significantly more effective than aspirin and clopidogrel alone in the long-term prevention of serious vascular events in patients with prior non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Cilostazol was associated with a significantly lower bleeding risk than low-dose aspirin (75-162 mg daily) and aspirin (50 mg daily) plus dipyridamole (400 mg daily). Low-dose aspirin was as effective as higher daily doses. However, further large, randomised, controlled, head-to-head trials are needed, especially in non-Asian ethnic groups.

Indexed as

AspirinCilostazolClopidogrelDipyridamoleDrug Therapy, CombinationHemorrhageHumansIschemic Attack, TransientPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSecondary PreventionStrokeTetrazolesTiclopidineAspirinCilostazolClopidogrelDipyridamolePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTetrazolesTiclopidinecerebral infarctionmeta-analysisplatelet aggregation inhibitorssecondary preventiontransient ischemic attack

Identifiers

PMID26988347
PMCPMC4800132
OpenAlexW2304307857

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.