The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The United Kingdom transient ischaemic attack (UK-TIA) aspirin trial: final results.
Open accessAbstract
From 1979-85, 2435 patients with a transient ischaemic attack or minor ischaemic stroke were randomly allocated to receive long term "blind" treatment with aspirin 600 mg twice daily (n = 815), aspirin 300 mg once daily (n = 806) or placebo (n = 814). No patient was lost to follow up. The "intention to treat" comparison included all the serious vascular events and deaths which occurred before the end of the follow up period on 30 September 1986. There was no difference in efficacy between the 300 mg and 1200 mg daily doses of aspirin, but the lower dose was undoubtedly less gastrotoxic. Also, there was no definite difference in the response of males and females to aspirin. The odds of suffering a major stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular death were 15% less in the combined aspirin groups compared with the placebo group (95% confidence interval 29% reduction to 3% increase in odds) which is compatible with the continuing overview of all the similar trials of antiplatelet drugs where the relative reduction in odds was 25%. There was no statistically significant reduction in the likelihood of either disabling major stroke and vascular death or vascular death occurring.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Cited by
European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012)
Authors/Task Force Members:, Perk, J., De Backer, G., Gohlke, H., Graham, I., Reiner, Ž., Verschuren, M., Albus, C., Benlian, P., Boysen, G., et al. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092 · Cited by 8,490
2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice
Piepoli, M. F., Hoes, A. W., Agewall, S., Albus, C., Brotons, C., Catapano, A. L., Cooney, M.-T., Corrà, U., Cosyns, B., Deaton, C., et al. (2016) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106 · Cited by 6,457
Kernan, W. N., Ovbiagele, B., Black, H. R., Bravata, D. M., Chimowitz, M. I., Ezekowitz, M. D., Fang, M. C., Fisher, M., Furie, K. L., Heck, D. V., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000024 · Cited by 5,170
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Fuster, V., Rydén, L. E., Cannom, D. S., Crijns, H. J., Curtis, A. B., Ellenbogen, K. A., Halperin, J. L., Le Heuzey, J.-Y., Kay, G. N., Lowe, J. E., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.177292 · Cited by 2,805
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrell, B., Godwin, J., Richards, S., & Warlow, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1991-12-01
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1044-1054
- ISSN
- 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2134004558
- Cited by
- 1,203
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.