Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population

Open access
Cuzick, J., Thorat, M.A., Bosetti, C., Brown, P.H., Burn, J., Cook, N.R., Ford, L.G., Jacobs, E.J., Jankowski, J.A., La Vecchia, C., Law, M., Meyskens, F., Rothwell, P.M., Senn, H.J., Umar, A.·2015·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence supports an effect of aspirin in reducing overall cancer incidence and mortality in the general population. We reviewed current data and assessed the benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. METHODS: The effect of aspirin for site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, cardiovascular events was collated from the most recent systematic reviews. Studies identified through systematic Medline search provided data regarding harmful effects of aspirin and baseline rates of harms like gastrointestinal bleeding and peptic ulcer. RESULTS: The effects of aspirin on cancer are not apparent until at least 3 years after the start of use, and some benefits are sustained for several years after cessation in long-term users. No differences between low and standard doses of aspirin are observed, but there were no direct comparisons. Higher doses do not appear to confer additional benefit but increase toxicities. Excess bleeding is the most important harm associated with aspirin use, and its risk and fatality rate increases with age. For average-risk individuals aged 50-65 years taking aspirin for 10 years, there would be a relative reduction of between 7% (women) and 9% (men) in the number of cancer, myocardial infarction or stroke events over a 15-year period and an overall 4% relative reduction in all deaths over a 20-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic aspirin use for a minimum of 5 years at doses between 75 and 325 mg/day appears to have favourable benefit-harm profile; longer use is likely to have greater benefits. Further research is needed to determine the optimum dose and duration of use, to identify individuals at increased risk of bleeding, and to test effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening-eradication before starting aspirin prophylaxis.

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 · 10.1093/annonc/mdu225

Cites

6 of 6 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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Cuzick, J., Thorat, M. A., Bosetti, C., Brown, P. H., Burn, J., Cook, N. R., Ford, L. G., Jacobs, E. J., Jankowski, J. A., La Vecchia, C., Law, M., Meyskens, F., Rothwell, P. M., Senn, H. J., & Umar, A.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
47-57
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110501221
Cited by
382
References
6
FWCI
33.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/annonc/mdu225
The paper
Cuzick, J., Thorat, M. A., Bosetti, C., Brown, P. H., Burn, J., Cook, N. R., Ford, L. G., Jacobs, E. J., Jankowski, J. A., La Vecchia, C., Law, M., Meyskens, F., Rothwell, P. M., Senn, H. J., & Umar, A. (2015). Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu225

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.