View

The Study

The efficacy and safety of lower-dose aspirin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the elderly: an interim analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational study

In simple terms

This study watched what happened when doctors gave different aspirin doses to older people and saw that those on 50mg bled less — but the doctors chose the dose, not a coin flip. So we can't say the lower dose caused less bleeding; maybe those people were just healthier or more careful. It shows a pattern, not proof.

65%

Analysis score

65/ 72

Maximum 72 for a cohort study.

Where the score came from

Reporting0
Methodology56
Publication100
Statistical100
Study type (basis of the score)
Cohort Study
Level 2b - Individual cohort study
What’s the bottom line?

Scientists studied older people taking either a small (50 mg) or regular (100 mg) aspirin daily to see which was better for heart health.

Where does this study sit?

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses

Max 100

Randomized Trials

Max 90

Cohort Studies

Max 72

Case-Control

Max 58

Cross-Sectional

Max 44

Case Reports & Series

Max 30

Expert Opinion

Max 5
StrongerWeaker
Cohort Studies
Level 2
65

65 / 100

Quality score

Groups of people are followed over time to see who develops an outcome. Strong for identifying risk factors and associations, but cannot prove causation as firmly as RCTs.

Cannot establish causation

Save studies & get personalized insights

Create a free account to save this study, track new evidence as it comes in, and get breakdowns of studies in the topics you care about.

Key takeaways

Summary

Based on the study abstract and findings.

  1. 1Yes — fewer bleeds mean fewer hospital visits and safer long-term use, especially for older adults at higher bleeding risk.
  2. 2Both doses prevented heart attacks and strokes equally.
  3. 3But the 50 mg group had nearly 3 times less bleeding in the primary prevention group and 1.5 times less in the secondary group.

Score breakdown, methodology, conflicts of interest, evidence analysis & raw study data

Publication

Journal

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Year

2026

Authors

Xiting Wang, Hong Qi, Yuan Wu, Hongliang Cong, Pida Hao, Xiqiang Liu, Yong Liu, Zhuhua Yao, Aiping Jin, Yan Hou, Nabuqi He, Yingxin Zhao, Yanmei Sun, X. Qian, Keshan Liang, Huaizhong Zhang, Lili Liu, Zheng Zhang, Yingwu Liu, P. Dou, Shudong Xia, Hongwei Li, Jiuyu Yang, Jie Hu, Zhangyong Xia, Bo Liu, Hailian Jin, Xiulian Yan, Wei Miao, Hua Guo, Longmei Zhao, Qingtan Zhang, Tao Tian, Xibo Sun, Jianwei He, Xiaoping Chen, Zhaohui Wang, Zheng Zhang, Qing Liu, Jianchun Wang, Sainan Zhu, Mei-Qi Liu

Open Access
Analysis v4
Fit Body Science verdict — we translate health studies into clear verdicts backed by peer-reviewed research.

Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.