MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antiplatelet therapy for acute ischaemic stroke

2008· review· en· W1957758434 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Sandercock, Carl Counsell, Gordon Gubitz, Mei‐Chiun Tseng

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinStroke (engine)Odds ratioCochrane LibraryInternal medicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialClinical trialRelative riskPlatelet aggregation inhibitorMeta-analysisAntiplatelet drugPhysical therapyClopidogrel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute ischaemic stroke, platelets become activated. Antiplatelet therapy might reduce the volume of brain damaged by ischaemia and reduce the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke. This might reduce the risk of early death and improve long-term outcome in survivors. However, antiplatelet therapy might also increase the risk of fatal or disabling intracranial haemorrhage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet therapy in acute ischaemic stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (June 1998 to May 2007), and EMBASE (June 1998 to May 2007). In 1998, for a previous version of this review, we searched the register of the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration, MedStrategy and contacted relevant drug companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing antiplatelet therapy (started within 14 days of the stroke) with control in patients with definite or presumed ischaemic stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed trial quality, and for the included trials, extracted and cross-checked the data. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials involving 43,041 participants were included. Two trials testing aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg once daily started within 48 hours of onset contributed 94% of the data. The maximum follow up was six months. With treatment, there was a significant decrease in death or dependency at the end of follow up (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.99). For every 1000 patients treated with aspirin, 13 patients will avoid death or dependency (number needed to treat to benefit: 79). Antiplatelet therapy was associated with a small but definite excess of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages, but this was more than offset by the reduction of recurrent ischaemic strokes and pulmonary embolus. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg daily, given orally (or by nasogastric tube or per rectum in patients who cannot swallow), and started within 48 hours of onset of presumed ischaemic stroke reduces the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke without a major risk of early haemorrhagic complications and improves long-term outcome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0320.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations263
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207