Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2000
An assessment of morbidity registers for coronary heart disease in primary care. ASSIST (ASSessment of Implementation STrategy) trial collaborative group.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cluster randomised controlled trial to compare three methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Trial
- Identification of major cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes using primary care data.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Article
- Improving evidence based cardiac care and policy implementation over the patient journey: the potential of coronary heart disease registers.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2005Article
- How accurate is diagnosis of asthma in a general practice database? A review of patients' notes and questionnaire-reported symptoms.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Article
- Identification of stroke in the community: a comparison of three methods.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Article
- New beginning for care for elderly people? National framework could transform care for older people in England.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- Identifying patients with ischaemic heart disease in general practice: cross sectional study of paper and computerised medical records.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrganised care delivered systematically to all patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD) can reduce their risk factors and improve their quality of life. Therefore, identifying all patients with established CHD in a general practice population is an important first step for delivering this effective healthcare. However, there is little information on how registers are compiled, the factors that predict inclusion on the register or the relationship between registration and level of care provided.
aimTo assess the completeness of morbidity registers for CHD in primary care, the factors that predict inclusion on the register, and the relationship between registration and level of care provided.
methodObservational study at baseline of 1979 patients aged 55 to 75 years with established CHD in 18 general practices recruited for a cluster randomised controlled trial.
resultsThe proportion of CHD patients correctly identified on practice morbidity registers varied from 29.3% to 100%. Four factors were significantly and independently associated with being on a register: a relevant surgery contact since diagnosis (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.6%-2.9%); a relevant repeat prescription since diagnosis (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1%-2.3%); a diagnosis of myocardial infarction (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2%-1.9%); and a revascularisation procedure (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1%-2.0%). Inclusion on a register was strongly associated with being adequately assessed (i.e. assessed for smoking status, blood pressure, and cholesterol) (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3%-2.3%) and with treatment with aspirin or a lipid-lowering agent (OR = 1.4 for each agent).
conclusionA wide variation in registration levels between practices exists. There is evidence that practices using multiple methods of case detection achieve higher levels of registration. The association between registration and better care does not prove causality but an effective call-recall system is impossible without complete registration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11050785PMC1313797What 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.