Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.
Item: Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Alpha1

Zhu Y, Zhang W, Dimagli A, Han L, Cheng Z, Mei J, Chen X, Wang X, Zhou Y, Xue Q, Hu J, Tang M, Wang R, Song Y, Kang L, Redfors B, Gaudino M, Zhao Q

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 16, 2026

Read alongside

Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.

Zhu Y, Zhang W, Dimagli A, Han L, Cheng Z, Mei J, Chen X, Wang X, Zhou Y, Xue Q, Hu J, Tang M, Wang R, Song Y, Kang L, Redfors B, Gaudino M, Zhao Q

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2023-075707

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/cbc57b8c-0009-419d-ad42-255baf69bf31" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/cbc57b8c-0009-419d-ad42-255baf69bf31/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

0a1b2abcc4a48c17a2774a0e202330a680694a6b8c49c16e090994ae96f80dda

Verify via API

Issued Aug 16, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.

Zhu Y, Zhang W, Dimagli A, Han L, Cheng Z, Mei J, Chen X, Wang X, Zhou Y, Xue Q, Hu J, Tang M, Wang R, Song Y, Kang L, Redfors B, Gaudino M, Zhao Q

Paper source

Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 16, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 102OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 104DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found · partly checked 06Copyedit6 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and clearly reported five-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, with strong methodology, ethical compliance, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the absence of a data availability statement, which limits reproducibility. Minor copyedit issues and a few reporting gaps (e.g., no explicit reporting guideline) are present but do not undermine the scientific integrity.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and I adopted that. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were not applicable (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) due to the human clinical trial nature. The statistics verification covered only a subset of reported tests (6 of many), so the absence of flagged errors does not confirm all statistics.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 6 tests: 6 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 5 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst low

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

1 finding · worst medium

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior randomized and observational studies suggesting dual antiplatelet therapy is more effective than aspirin monotherapy for vein graft patency, but notes inconclusive evidence on clinical outcomes. The rationale for the DACAB-FE study is clearly linked to the need to assess long-term clinical outcomes. Limitations of prior work are implicitly addressed by the design of the DACAB trial and the extended follow-up.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on antiplatelet therapy after CABG and the rationale for the extended follow-up.

Evidence

“Findings from randomised and observational studies suggest that dual antiplatelet therapy is more effective than aspirin monotherapy in preventing saphenous vein graft failure.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“We have now extended the clinical follow-up of patients included in the DACAB trial to five years (DACAB-Follow-up Extension (DACAB-FE) study), with the aim of investigating the effect of different antiplatelet strategies on clinical outcomes at five years after coronary artery bypass grafting.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

“However, the evidence is inconclusive with regard to the effect of dual antiplatelet therapy on clinical outcomes”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“Findings from randomised and observational studies suggest that dual antiplatelet therapy is more effective than aspirin monotherapy in preventing saphenous vein graft failure.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

IntroductionFind in source

paraphrase[Introduction]

“The introduction notes that evidence on clinical outcomes is inconclusive, but does not explicitly discuss limitations of prior studies.”

The original DACAB trial was randomized 1:1:1 with an open-label, evaluator-blind design. The follow-up study uses intention-to-treat analysis, pre-specified outcomes, and multiple sensitivity analyses. The sample size was based on the original trial's power calculation, and the follow-up did not perform a new power calculation, which is acceptable for a follow-up study.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is rigorous for a randomized controlled trial, with clear randomization, blinding, and pre-specified analyses, though the follow-up extension lacks a formal power calculation.

Evidence

“randomised 1:1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily (dual antiplatelet therapy), ticagrelor monotherapy 90 mg twice daily, or aspirin monotherapy 100 mg once daily”

MethodsFind in source

“open label, evaluator blind, randomised, controlled trial”

MethodsFind in source

“For the DACAB-FE study, we did no formal power calculation.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study design is rigorous for a follow-up of an RCT, with clear randomization, blinding, and analysis methods.

Evidence

“eligible patients were enrolled from 31 July 2014 through 3 November 2015 and randomised 1:1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily (dual antiplatelet therapy), ticagrelor monotherapy 90 mg twice daily, or aspirin monotherapy 100 mg once daily for one year after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.”

MethodsFind in source

“The DACAB trial was a prospective, multicentre, open label, evaluator blind, randomised, controlled trial”

MethodsFind in source

“The sample size for the DACAB trial was based on a calculated statistical power of 80% to detect a significant difference in the primary outcome of vein graft patency. For the DACAB-FE study, we did no formal power calculation.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sex is reported (81.8% male, 18.2% female). Age is reported as mean (SD). Demographics include body mass index, coronary syndrome status, medical history, and other characteristics. Since both sexes are enrolled, sex_justified is not applicable. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable for a human trial.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Biological variables are well reported for a human trial, including sex, age, and demographics.

Evidence

“Most of the patients enrolled were men (81.8%)”

ResultsFind in source

“Mean (SD) age, years | 63.1 (8.2)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Medical history: Myocardial infarction | 156 (31.2)”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographic and baseline characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and comorbidities.

Evidence

“Most of the patients enrolled were men (81.8%), and the mean age was 63.1 years.”

ResultsFind in source

“Mean (SD) age, years | 63.1 (8.2) | 63.0 (8.1) | 62.9 (8) | 63.5 (8.1)”

Table 1Find in source

The protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Ruijin Hospital (KY-2019-49). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

“The protocol for DACAB-FE (available as an online supplement) was reviewed and approved by the independent institutional review board of Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (KY-2019-49).”

EthicsFind in source

“Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

“Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

The study uses ticagrelor and aspirin as investigational products, which are identified with manufacturer (AstraZeneca) and dosing regimen. Statistical software (SAS 9.4) is identified. No antibodies, cell lines, or other bench reagents are used, so those criteria are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

The investigational products (ticagrelor and aspirin) are identified with dose and regimen, and statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily (dual antiplatelet therapy; n=168), ticagrelor monotherapy 90 mg twice daily (n=166), or aspirin monotherapy 100 mg once daily (n=166)”

AbstractFind in source

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“AstraZeneca provided the study medication free of charge”

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational products (ticagrelor and aspirin) are identified with doses and regimen, and statistical software is named.

Evidence

AbstractFind in source

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

The paper names the statistical tests (Cox regression, Fine-Gray, etc.), reports exact p-values and 95% confidence intervals, and identifies the software. The Cox proportional hazards assumption was tested. Data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves and per-group event counts. Mathematical plausibility checks were not performed due to the nature of the data (time-to-event, large N).

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“We used Kaplan-Meier curves to describe the event-free survival in the groups and univariate Cox regression models to compare the risk of outcomes between treatment groups.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“We tested the Cox proportionality assumption by means of scaled Schoenfeld residuals.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.99; P=0.04”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals.

Evidence

“We used Kaplan-Meier curves to describe the event-free survival in the groups and univariate Cox regression models to compare the risk of outcomes between treatment groups.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.99; P=0.04”

ResultsFind in source

“The global Schoenfeld residuals test verified the Cox proportionality assumption (P=0.63).”

ResultsFind in source

The paper does not include an explicit data availability statement in the text provided. The only mention is in the funding section, which does not specify data access. No repository deposit or accession numbers are mentioned. Since this is a clinical trial, patient-level data may be subject to controlled access, but no mechanism is described.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague, and no data repository or code is provided.

Evidence

absence[Full text]

No data availability statement is found.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague, and no data repository or code is provided.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is present.

The trial is registered (NCT03987373). Methods are detailed enough for replication. Limitations are discussed in the Discussion. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding sources and competing interests are declared. No reporting guideline is explicitly mentioned, but the paper follows standard reporting for clinical trials.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper is transparent, with trial registration, detailed methods, limitations, and funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“Trial registration NCT03987373”

AbstractFind in source

“The main limitation is that the randomised allocation to antiplatelet therapy was for the first year only.”

LimitationsFind in source

“Funding: The DACAB and DACAB-FE studies were funded as an investigator initiated trial by AstraZeneca.”

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper is transparent, with trial registration, funding, conflicts of interest, and limitations discussed.

Evidence

“Trial registration NCT03987373ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987373 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Funding: The DACAB and DACAB-FE studies were funded as an investigator initiated trial by AstraZeneca.”

FundingFind in source

“The main limitation is that the randomised allocation to antiplatelet therapy was for the first year only.”

LimitationsFind in source

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found · partly checked

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Nothing surfaced — but not everything feeding this category ran (missing: data/code link verification), so read this as a partial clean bill.

Checked 34 references by DOI: 34 verified.

Copyediting

6 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, grammar, other.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and methodologically sound; an informed reader should weigh the lack of a data availability statement and the absence of a formal power calculation for the follow-up as minor limitations. No erratum is warranted based on the evidence reviewed, but the authors should consider adding a data availability statement and clarifying the follow-up power analysis in any correction or re-analysis.

1.
HIGHdata code
Add a data availability statement in the Methods or a dedicated section, specifying how de-identified patient data can be accessed (e.g., via a data access committee or on reasonable request with conditions).
The paper currently has no data availability statement, which is a reproducibility gap that readers and journals expect to be addressed.
2.
HIGHdata code
Consider depositing the statistical analysis code (e.g., SAS scripts) in a public repository with a DOI to enhance reproducibility.
Providing analysis code allows independent verification of the reported results and strengthens the paper's reproducibility.
3.
MEDIUMreporting
Mention adherence to a reporting guideline such as CONSORT in the Methods or a footnote.
Explicitly stating compliance with CONSORT improves transparency and helps readers assess reporting completeness.
4.
MEDIUMrigor
Provide a formal power calculation for the follow-up extension, even if post hoc, to justify the sample size for the primary outcome.
The absence of a power calculation for the follow-up is a limitation that could be addressed to strengthen the study's design rationale.
5.
MEDIUMrigor
Clarify the handling of missing data for patients lost to follow-up beyond the last visit date.
Describing how missing data were handled (e.g., censoring, imputation) is important for interpreting the time-to-event analyses.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Include a statement on whether the study was registered prospectively and any deviations from the registered protocol.
Transparency about registration timing and protocol deviations is important for assessing the risk of bias.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide more detail on the randomization method (e.g., random number generator, allocation concealment) in the Methods.
Detailed randomization procedures enhance the reproducibility and credibility of the trial design.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
Include a statement on whether any analyses were pre-specified in a statistical analysis plan and whether post hoc analyses are clearly labeled as such.
Distinguishing pre-specified from post hoc analyses is critical for interpreting the strength of the findings.
9.
LOWcopyedit
In the Abstract, replace 'v' with 'vs' for consistency with the rest of the text.
Consistent abbreviation usage improves readability and professionalism.
10.
LOWcopyedit
In the Abstract, remove the duplicate trial registration number and fix spacing: 'Trial registration NCT03987373ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987373 .'
The duplicate registration number is a typographical error that should be corrected.
11.
LOWcopyedit
In the Discussion, consider splitting long sentences (e.g., the one about intercurrent events and estimands) into two for clarity.
Shorter sentences improve readability and reduce the risk of misinterpretation.
12.
LOWcopyedit
In the Methods, Statistical analysis, use commas instead of semicolons in the subgroup list for readability.
Commas are more conventional in lists and improve readability.
13.
LOWcopyedit
Ensure footnote markers in Table 1 are correctly placed and visible.
Properly placed footnotes are essential for interpreting table data.

Full text (48,732 chars)Analyzed: Aug 16, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.

Zhu Y, Zhang W, Dimagli A, Han L, Cheng Z, Mei J, Chen X, Wang X, Zhou Y, Xue Q, Hu J, Tang M, Wang R, Song Y, Kang L, Redfors B, Gaudino M, Zhao Q

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2023-075707

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/cbc57b8c-0009-419d-ad42-255baf69bf31" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/cbc57b8c-0009-419d-ad42-255baf69bf31/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

0a1b2abcc4a48c17a2774a0e202330a680694a6b8c49c16e090994ae96f80dda

Verify via API

Issued Aug 16, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 102OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 104DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found · partly checked 06Copyedit6 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 6 tests: 6 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 5 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst low

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

1 finding · worst medium

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on antiplatelet therapy after CABG and the rationale for the extended follow-up.

Evidence

“Findings from randomised and observational studies suggest that dual antiplatelet therapy is more effective than aspirin monotherapy in preventing saphenous vein graft failure.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

Introduction ¶2Find in source

“However, the evidence is inconclusive with regard to the effect of dual antiplatelet therapy on clinical outcomes”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“Findings from randomised and observational studies suggest that dual antiplatelet therapy is more effective than aspirin monotherapy in preventing saphenous vein graft failure.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

IntroductionFind in source

paraphrase[Introduction]

“The introduction notes that evidence on clinical outcomes is inconclusive, but does not explicitly discuss limitations of prior studies.”

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is rigorous for a randomized controlled trial, with clear randomization, blinding, and pre-specified analyses, though the follow-up extension lacks a formal power calculation.

Evidence

“randomised 1:1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily (dual antiplatelet therapy), ticagrelor monotherapy 90 mg twice daily, or aspirin monotherapy 100 mg once daily”

MethodsFind in source

“open label, evaluator blind, randomised, controlled trial”

MethodsFind in source

“For the DACAB-FE study, we did no formal power calculation.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study design is rigorous for a follow-up of an RCT, with clear randomization, blinding, and analysis methods.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“The DACAB trial was a prospective, multicentre, open label, evaluator blind, randomised, controlled trial”

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Biological variables are well reported for a human trial, including sex, age, and demographics.

Evidence

“Most of the patients enrolled were men (81.8%)”

ResultsFind in source

“Mean (SD) age, years | 63.1 (8.2)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Medical history: Myocardial infarction | 156 (31.2)”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographic and baseline characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and comorbidities.

Evidence

“Most of the patients enrolled were men (81.8%), and the mean age was 63.1 years.”

ResultsFind in source

“Mean (SD) age, years | 63.1 (8.2) | 63.0 (8.1) | 62.9 (8) | 63.5 (8.1)”

Table 1Find in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

“Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

“Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.”

EthicsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.”

MethodsFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

The investigational products (ticagrelor and aspirin) are identified with dose and regimen, and statistical software is identified.

Evidence

AbstractFind in source

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“AstraZeneca provided the study medication free of charge”

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational products (ticagrelor and aspirin) are identified with doses and regimen, and statistical software is named.

Evidence

AbstractFind in source

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“We used Kaplan-Meier curves to describe the event-free survival in the groups and univariate Cox regression models to compare the risk of outcomes between treatment groups.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“We tested the Cox proportionality assumption by means of scaled Schoenfeld residuals.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.99; P=0.04”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals.

Evidence

“We used Kaplan-Meier curves to describe the event-free survival in the groups and univariate Cox regression models to compare the risk of outcomes between treatment groups.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.99; P=0.04”

ResultsFind in source

“The global Schoenfeld residuals test verified the Cox proportionality assumption (P=0.63).”

ResultsFind in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague, and no data repository or code is provided.

Evidence

absence[Full text]

No data availability statement is found.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague, and no data repository or code is provided.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is present.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper is transparent, with trial registration, detailed methods, limitations, and funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“Trial registration NCT03987373”

AbstractFind in source

“The main limitation is that the randomised allocation to antiplatelet therapy was for the first year only.”

LimitationsFind in source

“Funding: The DACAB and DACAB-FE studies were funded as an investigator initiated trial by AstraZeneca.”

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper is transparent, with trial registration, funding, conflicts of interest, and limitations discussed.

Evidence

“Trial registration NCT03987373ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987373 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Funding: The DACAB and DACAB-FE studies were funded as an investigator initiated trial by AstraZeneca.”

FundingFind in source

“The main limitation is that the randomised allocation to antiplatelet therapy was for the first year only.”

LimitationsFind in source

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found · partly checked

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Nothing surfaced — but not everything feeding this category ran (missing: data/code link verification), so read this as a partial clean bill.

Checked 34 references by DOI: 34 verified.

Copyediting

6 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, grammar, other.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHdata code
Add a data availability statement in the Methods or a dedicated section, specifying how de-identified patient data can be accessed (e.g., via a data access committee or on reasonable request with conditions).
The paper currently has no data availability statement, which is a reproducibility gap that readers and journals expect to be addressed.
2.
HIGHdata code
Consider depositing the statistical analysis code (e.g., SAS scripts) in a public repository with a DOI to enhance reproducibility.
Providing analysis code allows independent verification of the reported results and strengthens the paper's reproducibility.
3.
MEDIUMreporting
Mention adherence to a reporting guideline such as CONSORT in the Methods or a footnote.
Explicitly stating compliance with CONSORT improves transparency and helps readers assess reporting completeness.
4.
MEDIUMrigor
Provide a formal power calculation for the follow-up extension, even if post hoc, to justify the sample size for the primary outcome.
The absence of a power calculation for the follow-up is a limitation that could be addressed to strengthen the study's design rationale.
5.
MEDIUMrigor
Clarify the handling of missing data for patients lost to follow-up beyond the last visit date.
Describing how missing data were handled (e.g., censoring, imputation) is important for interpreting the time-to-event analyses.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Include a statement on whether the study was registered prospectively and any deviations from the registered protocol.
Transparency about registration timing and protocol deviations is important for assessing the risk of bias.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide more detail on the randomization method (e.g., random number generator, allocation concealment) in the Methods.
Detailed randomization procedures enhance the reproducibility and credibility of the trial design.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
Include a statement on whether any analyses were pre-specified in a statistical analysis plan and whether post hoc analyses are clearly labeled as such.
Distinguishing pre-specified from post hoc analyses is critical for interpreting the strength of the findings.
9.
LOWcopyedit
In the Abstract, replace 'v' with 'vs' for consistency with the rest of the text.
Consistent abbreviation usage improves readability and professionalism.
10.
LOWcopyedit
In the Abstract, remove the duplicate trial registration number and fix spacing: 'Trial registration NCT03987373ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987373 .'
The duplicate registration number is a typographical error that should be corrected.
11.
LOWcopyedit
In the Discussion, consider splitting long sentences (e.g., the one about intercurrent events and estimands) into two for clarity.
Shorter sentences improve readability and reduce the risk of misinterpretation.
12.
LOWcopyedit
In the Methods, Statistical analysis, use commas instead of semicolons in the subgroup list for readability.
Commas are more conventional in lists and improve readability.
13.
LOWcopyedit
Ensure footnote markers in Table 1 are correctly placed and visible.
Properly placed footnotes are essential for interpreting table data.

Full text (48,732 chars)Analyzed: Aug 16, 2026