Double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy: a meta-analysis of the real-life effect in about 20,000 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary artery stenting.

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that, to be appropriate for use in clinical practice, guidelines must be based on solid scientific evidence from RCTs, complemented by observational studies that better represent real-world patients and treatment adherence. Furthermore, in case of rare events, RR can amplify the size of an effect that is clinically not relevant. Efficacy measures that take into account the low incidence of the event, such as RD and NNT, are desirable. Furthermore, the NNT allows for the direct quantification of the number of patients who benefit or suffer harm from the study treatment and should therefore be preferred.