ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Comparing efficacy and safety of low-dose versus standard-dose antiplatelet therapy in stroke patients: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stroke is the leading cause of disability globally, with antiplatelet therapy being crucial for secondary prevention but also increasing bleeding risks. This requires careful dosage adjustments to balance thrombosis and bleeding risks. Objective: This study compared the efficacy and safety of low-dose versus standard-dose antiplatelet therapy in stroke patients. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and the Wanfang Medical Database, up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials assessing low-dose antiplatelet therapy in stroke patients were considered. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2) was used for quality. Performed meta-analysis using Stata 15.0, with relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as effect estimates. Results: Ten studies involving 7,703 Asia participants, mainly from China and Japan, were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that low-dose reduces the risk of bleeding (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.27, 0.98) compared to standard dose, with similar risks for stroke (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.69, 1.55), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 1.91; 95% CI 0.88, 4.12), all-cause death (ACD) (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38, 3.62), and major bleeding (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.16, 3.30). Subgroup analysis revealed that compared to standard-dose clopidogrel, low-dose clopidogrel increased the risk of MI. Notably, this increased risk was observed specifically within the Chinese population but not in the Japanese population. Low-dose clopidogrel and low-dose prasugrel reduce the risk of bleeding compared to standard-dose clopidogrel, but there is no statistically significant difference. Low-dose aspirin significantly reduces the risk of bleeding compared to standard-dose aspirin. Conclusion: In patients with stroke in Asia, low-dose antiplatelet therapy significantly reduces the risk of bleeding compared to standard doses, with consistent risks of stroke, MI, ACD, major bleeding, and discontinuation due to bleeding.
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.