Does pre-injury clopidogrel use increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage post head injury in adult patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Several current guidelines do not include antiplatelet use as an explicit indication for CT scan of the head following head injury. The impact of individual antiplatelet agent use on rates of intracranial haemorrhage is unclear. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess if clopidogrel monotherapy was associated with traumatic intracranial haemorrhage (tICH) on CT of the head within 24 hours of presentation following head trauma compared with no antithrombotic controls. Methods Eligible studies were non-randomised studies with participants aged ≥18 years old with head injury. Studies had to have conducted CT of the head within 24 hours of presentation and contain a no antithrombotic control group and a clopidogrel monotherapy group. Eight databases were searched from inception to December 2020. Assessment of identified studies against inclusion criteria and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate by two authors. Quality assessment and risk of bias (ROB) were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment tool and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and reported as an OR and 95% CI. Results Seven studies were eligible for inclusion with a total of 21 898 participants that were incorporated into the meta-analysis. Five studies were retrospective. Clopidogrel monotherapy was not significantly associated with an increase in risk of tICH compared with no antithrombotic controls (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.75). Heterogeneity was high with an I 2 of 75%. Sensitivity analysis produced an I 2 of 21% and did not show a significant association between clopidogrel monotherapy and risk of tICH (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.55). All studies scored for moderate to serious ROB on categories in the ROBINS-I tool. Conclusion Included studies were vulnerable to confounding and several were small-scale studies. The results should be interpreted with caution given the ROB identified. This study does not provide statistically significant evidence that clopidogrel monotherapy patients are at increased risk of tICH after head injury compared with no antithrombotic controls. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020223541.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".