↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the effectiveness of different aspirin dosing regimens and the timing of aspirin intake in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Investigating the effectiveness of different aspirin dosing regimens and the timing of aspirin intake in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0078-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danai Bem, Janine Dretzke, Simon Stevens, Marie Lordkipanidzé, James Hodgkinson, Sue Bayliss, David Moore, David Fitzmaurice

Abstract

Once-daily low-dose aspirin is routinely used for the prevention of secondary events in cardiovascular disease (CVD). The routine use of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD is less clear due to a finer balance between benefits and harms. In addition, the variability in benefit achievable from the prescription of aspirin has led to a growing interest in considering whether there are more effective aspirin regimens than once-daily dosing or whether effectiveness is influenced by the time of day aspirin is taken (chronotherapy). The proposed systematic review will evaluate the evidence on the effects of different aspirin regimens used in terms of number of doses (e.g. split or alternate dosing) or dosing time of aspirin (e.g. morning versus evening) in primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Standard systematic review methodology will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction. Electronic databases will be searched incorporating terms relating to population and the intervention. No date or language limitations will apply. Systematic reviews and controlled studies comparing different aspirin regimens-in terms of frequency or timing-for primary and/or secondary prevention of CVD will be included. No restrictions on outcome will apply. Quality assessment will be appropriate for each study design. The data will be tabulated and narratively synthesised. Meta-analysis may be undertaken where clinical and methodological homogeneity exists. There are a number of published and ongoing primary studies that investigate the cardiovascular protective effect of different aspirin regimens. However, no systematic review to date has attempted to review the evidence pertaining to aspirin dosing regimens differing in frequency and/or in timing. The proposed systematic review will cover both the above questions and could potentially be beneficial for reconsidering the current practice of managing patients with aspirin in primary care. PROSPERO CRD42014010596.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,280,315
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,911
of 1,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,510
of 264,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.