Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 846

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Warfarin, Aspirin, or Both after Myocardial Infarction

Hurlen, Mette, Abdelnoor, Michael, Smith, Pål, Erikssen, Jan, Arnesen, Harald·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of antithrombotic therapy in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction is well established. Although the available literature suggests that warfarin is superior to aspirin, aspirin is currently the more widely used drug. We studied the efficacy and safety of warfarin, aspirin, or both after myocardial infarction. METHODS: In a randomized, multicenter trial in 3630 patients, 1216 received warfarin (in a dose intended to achieve an international normalized ratio [INR] of 2.8 to 4.2), 1206 received aspirin (160 mg daily), and 1208 received aspirin (75 mg daily) combined with warfarin (in a dose intended to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 2.5). The mean duration of observation was four years. RESULTS: The primary outcome, a composite of death, nonfatal reinfarction, or thromboembolic cerebral stroke, occurred in 241 of 1206 patients receiving aspirin (20.0 percent), 203 of 1216 receiving warfarin (16.7 percent; rate ratio as compared with aspirin, 0.81; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.95; P=0.03), and 181 of 1208 receiving warfarin and aspirin (15.0 percent; rate ratio as compared with aspirin, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.83; P=0.001). The difference between the two groups receiving warfarin was not statistically significant. Episodes of major, nonfatal bleeding were observed in 0.62 percent of patients per treatment-year in both groups receiving warfarin and in 0.17 percent of patients receiving aspirin (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin, in combination with aspirin or given alone, was superior to aspirin alone in reducing the incidence of composite events after an acute myocardial infarction but was associated with a higher risk of bleeding.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa020496

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1136/hrt.38.7.659 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/S0002-8703(77)80410-9 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1136/hrt.40.2.153 · DOI
  4. 10.1056/NEJM198010163031601 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1056/NEJM199007193230302 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1056/NEJM198104023041401 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1056/NEJM198108063050601 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1001/jama.222.5.541 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0002-8703(66)90655-7 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.0954-6820.1967.tb10881.x · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.0954-6820.1969.tb01488.x · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.0954-6820.1969.tb07299.x · DOI
  13. 1980, Lancet, 2, 989
  14. 1994, Lancet, 343, 499
  15. 10.1016/S0140-6736(79)92808-3 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/S0735-1097(86)80489-2 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1136/bmj.324.7329.71 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Breddin K, 1980, Haemostasis, 9, 325
  19. 10.1056/NEJM198209163071201 · DOI
  20. Julian DG, 1996, BMJ, 313, 1429, 10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1429 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01180-X · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1001/jama.282.21.2058 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.1994.tb00800.x · DOI
  24. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03487-3 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11475-1 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.2307/2531897 · DOI
  27. 10.2307/2532736 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/2347988 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. 1. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyons, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980. (IARC scientific publications no. 32.)
  30. 1988, Lancet, 2, 349

Cited by

See all 846

Metadata

Authors
Hurlen, M., Abdelnoor, M., Smith, P., Erikssen, J., & Arnesen, H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-09-26
Volume
347
Issue
13
Pages
969-974
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2046051565
Cited by
846
References
2
FWCI
30.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.