ArticleScientific reports2025
Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Chinese patients with coronary artery disease: a retrospective real-world study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
This study compares ticagrelor and clopidogrel on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding risk in Chinese CAD patients. Conducted at the Chinese PLA General Hospital from June 2017 to October 2020, it involved patients on DAPT, divided into A + C (aspirin + clopidogrel) and A + T (aspirin + ticagrelor) groups. The primary endpoint was MACE, including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. The secondary endpoint was BARC type 2, 3, and 5 bleeding events. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted confounders. Weighted outcomes and Cox models assessed treatment and outcomes. Of 844 patients, 631 were in A + C (470 males, median age 65) and 213 in A + T (178 males, median age 60). Covariates balanced using IPTW or PSM showed no significant baseline differences (P > 0.05, SMD < 0.2). No significant differences in MACE or BARC type 3/5 bleeding were found between groups. However, the A + T group had a higher risk of BARC type 2 bleeding (HR: 4.16, 95% CI: 2.18-7.90). The incidence rates of MACE events were 2.38% (15/631) in the A + C group and 3.29% (7/213) in the A + T group. This study indicates ticagrelor and clopidogrel have similar MACE and BARC type 3/5 bleeding incidence, but ticagrelor shows higher BARC type 2 bleeding risk.
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.