SynthesisInternal medicine journal2025
Efficacy and safety of using cilostazol versus aspirin in secondary stroke prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.
Synthesis in Internal medicine journal, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSecondary stroke prevention is crucial for reducing recurrent events and associated morbidity. Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, is considered an alternative to aspirin for patients with ischaemic stroke due to its potentially lower risk of haemorrhagic complications. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of cilostazol versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention. It provides a basis for drug selection and observation of secondary stroke prevention strategies.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials comparing cilostazol with aspirin in secondary stroke prevention. Key outcomes included recurrence of ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), death, effective rate and incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using I
resultsThirteen studies involving 8993 participants were included. Cilostazol significantly reduced the recurrence of ischaemic stroke (risk ratio (RR): 0.766, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.624-0.941) and ICH (RR: 0.392, 95% CI: 0.250-0.616) compared to aspirin. No significant differences were observed in overall mortality or adverse events. Cilostazol increased risks of headache, dizziness, diarrhoea and tachycardia but reduced constipation. Heterogeneity was generally low to moderate.
conclusionCilostazol is an effective alternative to aspirin for secondary stroke prevention, reducing the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke and ICH. However, its use is associated with certain adverse effects. Clinicians should consider individual patient profiles and preferences when selecting anti-platelet therapy for stroke prevention. Further research is warranted to optimise cilostazol use in clinical practice.
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.