Scholarlink

Background <p>Bleeding events in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) significantly affect patient outcomes, yet consistent reporting remains a challenge for clinicians. Although multiple standardized bleeding definitions exist, the Academic Bleeding Consensus (ABC) provides the only dedicated reporting guideline. This systematic review evaluates the adoption of the ABC guidelines and adherence to bleeding definition reporting in clinical research.</p> Methods <p>We systematically searched Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2012 and 2025 involving adult patients with ACS.</p> Results <p>Of the 135 RCTs included in the quantitative analysis, none fully adhered to the ABC reporting guidelines. Most trials only partially reported elements in the red and green domains, with only two RCTs fully reporting the orange domain. The Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition was the most frequently used (73.3%), though its reporting was often incomplete (82.8%). Industry-funded RCTs (OR: 3.66; 95%CI: 1.55–2.90), those prioritizing patient-important outcomes (OR: 13.22; 95%CI: 1.72-101.27), and trials with bleeding outcome reporting according to definition (OR: 3.88; 95%CI 10.22) were more likely to fully report bleeding definitions. Conversely, RCTs using the BARC definition showed lower rates of complete reporting.</p> Conclusion <p>The lack of adherence to the ABC guidelines highlights the need for a universally accepted reporting framework that integrates qualitative and quantitative bleeding characteristics. Such a guideline would enhance the interpretability of ACS interventions, supporting better patient-centered decision-making.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Enhancing bleeding reporting in acute coronary syndrome clinical trials: a systematic review of the ABC guidelines adherence

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月16日

查看全文
  • Mariano García-Campa,
  • Samantha Medrano-Juarez,
  • Patricia Lizeth Castillo-Morales,
  • Jan Alejandro Montiel-Labastida,
  • Raymundo Vera-Pineda,
  • Edgar Francisco Carrizales-Sepúlveda,
  • Raúl Reyes-Araiza,
  • Neri Álvarez-Villalobos,
  • René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez,
  • José Ramón Azpiri-López,
  • Ramiro Flores-Ramírez

摘要

Background

Bleeding events in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) significantly affect patient outcomes, yet consistent reporting remains a challenge for clinicians. Although multiple standardized bleeding definitions exist, the Academic Bleeding Consensus (ABC) provides the only dedicated reporting guideline. This systematic review evaluates the adoption of the ABC guidelines and adherence to bleeding definition reporting in clinical research.

Methods

We systematically searched Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2012 and 2025 involving adult patients with ACS.

Results

Of the 135 RCTs included in the quantitative analysis, none fully adhered to the ABC reporting guidelines. Most trials only partially reported elements in the red and green domains, with only two RCTs fully reporting the orange domain. The Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition was the most frequently used (73.3%), though its reporting was often incomplete (82.8%). Industry-funded RCTs (OR: 3.66; 95%CI: 1.55–2.90), those prioritizing patient-important outcomes (OR: 13.22; 95%CI: 1.72-101.27), and trials with bleeding outcome reporting according to definition (OR: 3.88; 95%CI 10.22) were more likely to fully report bleeding definitions. Conversely, RCTs using the BARC definition showed lower rates of complete reporting.

Conclusion

The lack of adherence to the ABC guidelines highlights the need for a universally accepted reporting framework that integrates qualitative and quantitative bleeding characteristics. Such a guideline would enhance the interpretability of ACS interventions, supporting better patient-centered decision-making.