↓ Skip to main content

The dogma of aspirin: a critical review of evidence on the best monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
The dogma of aspirin: a critical review of evidence on the best monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12959-015-0059-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hernan Polo Friz, Mauro Molteni, Claudio Cimminiello

Abstract

Dual antiplatelet therapy based on the combination of an adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-receptor antagonist plus aspirin has demonstrated to be more effective in reducing the rate of major ischemic vascular events compared to aspirin monotherapy in some clinical settings. The current controversy on the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy should not conceal another major issue: the choice of the more appropriate antiplatelet monotherapy after the dual treatment phase. The aim of this article is to critically analyze the available evidence in this topic. Data from studies like CAPRIE, MATCH, PROFESS, CHANCE, DAPT and others, raise questions as why antiplatelet monotherapy after the dual phase should only be based on aspirin, in spite of a lack of evidence surprisingly not highlighted by key opinion leaders and experts. We conclude that, whether ADP-receptor antagonist rather than aspirin may be proposed as monotherapy seems not only have no answer but also not place in the current specialists' analysis, as if a dogmatic approach were prevalent. Perhaps the time for an open debate on these topics is ripe.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 47%
Unspecified 3 20%
Computer Science 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Other 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,211,995
of 12,494,627 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#93
of 161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,269
of 207,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,494,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 207,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them