ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2026
Comparative effectiveness of cilostazol and aspirin in ischemic stroke: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare clinical characteristics and outcomes associated with cilostazol versus aspirin in patients with ischemic stroke, with attention to carotid plaque progression, lipid metabolism, platelet aggregation, adverse events, and 12-month stroke recurrence.
methodsThis retrospective study included 250 patients with ischemic stroke treated between August 2019 and April 2023, of whom 100 received cilostazol and 150 received aspirin according to routine clinical practice. Cilostazol was more commonly prescribed to patients with aspirin intolerance or perceived bleeding risk. Outcomes included changes in carotid plaque area and stenosis, lipid parameters, platelet function, adverse reactions, and recurrent ischemic stroke within 12 months.
resultsAt 12-month follow-up, patients receiving cilostazol showed greater reductions in carotid plaque area and stenosis rate compared with those receiving aspirin (P < 0.05). Differences were also observed in lipid profiles and platelet aggregation assays, with patterns consistent with the known pharmacological actions of cilostazol (P < 0.05). Adverse reactions, including bleeding events, pruritus, myalgia, and liver enzyme elevations, occurred less frequently in the cilostazol group (P < 0.05). Recurrent ischemic stroke was documented in 6.0% of cilostazol-treated patients and 20.0% of aspirin-treated patients (P < 0.05). These findings reflect associations observed in this real-world cohort and should be interpreted in light of underlying baseline differences and the non-randomized study design.
conclusionIn this retrospective cohort, cilostazol use was associated with more favorable safety outcomes and lower recurrence rates compared with aspirin. Because treatment allocation was clinically driven and residual confounding cannot be excluded, the results indicate associations rather than causal effects. Prospective randomized studies are needed to determine whether these observed differences represent true treatment benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41817850What 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.