Support but I would also edit the Text field.
The current card groups cilostazol and clopidogrel under “PAD management,” which creates ambiguity. PAD management involves symptom relief (cilostazol) and cardiovascular risk reduction (clopidogrel), which are distinct goals. A revised card focusing specifically on claudication symptoms would eliminate this confusion. Here’s my suggestion:
Which medication is most appropriate for improving claudication symptoms in peripheral arterial disease (PAD)?
{{c1::Cilostazol}}
@zarathustra I agree. Are you suggesting changing this card to text you’ve proposed above, or adding that as a new card to compliment this existing one? I’m thinking it might be helpful to keep this card as {{c1::Clopidogrel}} but adding clarification (changing to something like “…most appropriate for risk management in PAD?”), and your proposed text as a new, complimentary card to the deck.
agree with @andrewmathias8
your suggestion changes the card completely imo
I completely agree with your suggestion. Adding a new complementary card on cilostazol while keeping the current text field as is would be the best approach. However, I suggest removing the hint about clopidogrel/cilostazol from the existing card. With separate cards—one focused on risk management and the other on claudication symptoms—the hint becomes redundant and might create unnecessary confusion.
Additionally, I suggest including aspirin as an alternative to clopidogrel in the card on risk management, along with statins, to align with current guidelines and provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Combining our ideas, we could have two distinct cards:
- Which medication(s) is/are most appropriate for improving claudication symptoms in peripheral arterial disease (PAD)?
{{c1::Cilostazol}} - Which medication(s) is/are most appropriate for risk management in peripheral arterial disease (PAD)?
{{c1::Clopidogrel (or aspirin) and statins}}
Incorporating the edits suggested by @mohannadkh10 would ensure everything is clear and comprehensive
Love it!
We should check how this concept is tested on UW/AMBOSS. Current proposed changes sound great but let’s make sure any changes are hitting testable material too. Don’t see any UW tags but there’s a few amboss ones
@Anking-Maintainers bump
This was discussed in Slack probably 6+ months ago, but this card is confusing. Numerous UW QIDs testing on cilostazol after failure of supervised exercise program.
I’m pretty sure I recall this being tested. I agree with @zarathustra 's approach. Not sure how to check the AMBOSS QIDs
There is this card already in the deck, so I believe the best approach is to change the above card to the first card in @zarathustra approach
