SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Enhancing bleeding reporting in acute coronary syndrome clinical trials: a systematic review of the ABC guidelines adherence.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enhancing bleeding reporting in acute coronary syndrome clinical trials: a systematic review of the ABC guidelines adherence.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBleeding events in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) significantly affect patient outcomes, yet consistent reporting remains a challenge for clinicians. Although multiple standardized bleeding definitions exist, the Academic Bleeding Consensus (ABC) provides the only dedicated reporting guideline. This systematic review evaluates the adoption of the ABC guidelines and adherence to bleeding definition reporting in clinical research.
methodsWe systematically searched Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2012 and 2025 involving adult patients with ACS.
resultsOf the 135 RCTs included in the quantitative analysis, none fully adhered to the ABC reporting guidelines. Most trials only partially reported elements in the red and green domains, with only two RCTs fully reporting the orange domain. The Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition was the most frequently used (73.3%), though its reporting was often incomplete (82.8%). Industry-funded RCTs (OR: 3.66; 95%CI: 1.55-2.90), those prioritizing patient-important outcomes (OR: 13.22; 95%CI: 1.72-101.27), and trials with bleeding outcome reporting according to definition (OR: 3.88; 95%CI 10.22) were more likely to fully report bleeding definitions. Conversely, RCTs using the BARC definition showed lower rates of complete reporting.
conclusionThe lack of adherence to the ABC guidelines highlights the need for a universally accepted reporting framework that integrates qualitative and quantitative bleeding characteristics. Such a guideline would enhance the interpretability of ACS interventions, supporting better patient-centered decision-making.
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.