ReviewPharmacoEconomics1998
Impact of dyslipidaemia. Lessons from clinical trials.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals.Health economics review · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Western countries, and is associated with significant healthcare costs. Epidemiological studies have shown that elevated cholesterol levels, particularly elevated low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, are a major established risk factor for the development of CHD. There is a large amount of clinical data available to indicate that lowering total or LDL-cholesterol levels reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. The most recent cholesterol treatment guidelines from the US and Europe recommend intensive treatment (usually pharmacological) for patients at highest risk for CHD. Results from a number of landmark primary and secondary prevention studies are in support of these guidelines and also suggest that the lower the level of LDL-cholesterol achieved with treatment, the better clinical benefit attained. Thus, these findings indicate that even more aggressive lipid lowering than that recommended by available treatment guidelines may be warranted. Finding and treating all individuals at risk for CHD would be expected to increase the overall treatment costs of hypercholesterolaemia because many patients may not otherwise be treated; however, targeting high risk patients, rather than treating all patients or treating inappropriately, would be expected to reduce other healthcare costs and the indirect costs of lost productivity due to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Studies with the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, which show that these drugs substantially lower LDL-cholesterol, are the most convincing since they have consistently shown reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. As a result, statins are now well-established agents for the treatment of dyslipidaemia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.