The DOI matches its Crossref record.
81Efficacy and safety of alternate-day versus daily dosing of statins: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses on this topic evaluated the effectiveness of intermittent, non-daily statin administration compared with daily dosing in patients with or without a history of SAMS.
“The most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses on this topic evaluated the effectiveness of intermittent, non-daily statin administration compared with daily dosing in patients with or without a history of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS).”
To date, the results of systematic reviews and meta-analysis are limited and focused on statin-naïve patients.
“To date, the results of systematic reviews and meta-analysis are limited and focused on statin-naïve patients [16–18].”
The results of prior studies revealed conflicting evidence regarding the incidence of muscle symptoms.
“The results revealed conflicting evidence regarding the incidence of muscle symptoms [16,18].”
All three prior studies applied differing definitions of SAMS, contributing to variability in outcome assessment and limiting comparability across findings.
“All three studies [16–18] applied differing definitions of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), contributing to variability in outcome assessment and limiting comparability across findings.”
Our analysis specifically targets patients with documented SAMS allowing all clinically relevant evaluation of treatment strategies in this population.
“In 14, our analysis specifically targets patients with documented SAMS allowing all clinically relevant evaluation of treatment strategies in this population [16].”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Aebi, P. S., Villoz, F., Bührer, J., Lyko, C., Abolhassani, N., Del Giovane, C., Gencer, B., Rodondi, N., & Blum, M. R. (2025) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338575
Metadata
- Authors
- Awad, K., Mikhailidis, D. P., Toth, P. P., Jones, S. R., Moriarty, P., Lip, G. Y. H., Muntner, P., Catapano, A. L., Pencina, M. J., Rosenson, R. S., Banach, M., & Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-analysis Collaboration (LBPMC) Group
- Affiliations
- Zagazig University (EG)
- University College London (GB)
- CGH Medical Center (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
- Birmingham City Hospital (GB)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- MultiMedica (IT)
- Duke Clinical Research Institute (US)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
- Medical University of Lodz (PL)
- ORCID
- Venue
- European Heart Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-08-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- suppl_1
- ISSN
- 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
- 1522-9645
- OpenAlex
- W2794573061
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Keywords
- statins, alternate-day dosing, daily dosing, dosing frequency, efficacy, safety, lipid-lowering therapy
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
