↓ Skip to main content

RApid Primary care Initiation of Drug treatment for Transient Ischaemic Attack (RAPID−TIA): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
RApid Primary care Initiation of Drug treatment for Transient Ischaemic Attack (RAPID−TIA): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duncan Edwards, Kate Fletcher, Rachel Deller, Richard McManus, Daniel Lasserson, Matthew Giles, Don Sims, John Norrie, Graham McGuire, Simon Cohn, Fiona Whittle, Vikki Hobbs, Christopher Weir, Jonathan Mant

Abstract

People who have a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke are at high risk of a recurrent stroke, particularly in the first week after the event. Early initiation of secondary prevention drugs is associated with an 80% reduction in risk of stroke recurrence. This raises the question as to whether these drugs should be given before being seen by a specialist--that is, in primary care or in the emergency department. The aims of the RAPID-TIA pilot trial are to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial, to analyse cost effectiveness and to ask: Should general practitioners and emergency doctors (primary care physicians) initiate secondary preventative measures in addition to aspirin in people they see with suspected TIA or minor stroke at the time of referral to a specialist?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 26 27%