ReviewClinical cardiology2019
Critical appraisal of guidelines for coronary artery disease on dual antiplatelet therapy: More consensus than controversies.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic critical appraisal of current guidelines.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Caries Prevention following the AGREE II Checklist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Weighted gene co-expression network analysis identifies specific modules and hub genes related to coronary artery disease.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Critical appraisal of guidelines for coronary artery disease on dual antiplatelet therapy: More consensus than controversies.Clinical cardiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the form of aspirin plus a P
methodsContemporary guidelines in English were searched in MEDLINE, Embase and websites of guideline organizations and professional societies. Guidelines with recommendations on DAPT for CAD patients were included. Guideline quality was appraised with the 6-domain Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. The reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) was assessed individually with supplementary items from the RIGHT (Reporting Item for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist. Meanwhile, extraction of recommendations was performed.
resultsA total of 18 guidelines fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most of them were graded with relatively good scores averaging from 42% to 74%. Domains for lower scores were in "stakeholder involvement" and "application." The reporting of COI was satisfactory. For the recommendations on DAPT, most guidelines with high AGREE II scores included consistent recommendations on the timing and P
conclusionsQuality of guidelines for DAPT in CAD was relatively high, though defects existed in "Applicability" and "Stakeholder Involvement." As these guidelines developed, DAPT recommendations gradually converged on a consensus. Clinical decision should be made on an individual basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.