Trial reportCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2000
Lipid screening to prevent coronary artery disease: a quantitative evaluation of evolving guidelines.
Trial report in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement--recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2006 · on this mapGuideline
- Article
- The role of global risk assessment in hypertension therapy.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2006Review
- A comparison of Canadian and American guidelines for lipid management using data from the National Cholesterol Education Program Evaluation ProjecT Utilizing Novel E-technology (NEPTUNE) II survey.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2006Article
- Contribution of clinical risk factors to bone density-based absolute fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2003Article
- New heart risk equations do not affect existing guidelines.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Article
- Statin use in Canadians: trends, determinants and persistence.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publiqueArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is strong evidence to support the treatment of abnormal blood lipid levels among people with cardiovascular disease. Primary prevention is problematic because many individuals with lipid abnormalities may never actually develop cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the 1998 Canadian lipid guidelines to determine whether they accurately identify high-risk adults for primary prevention.
methodsUsing data from the Lipid Research Clinics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, we compared the diagnostic performance of the 1998 lipid guidelines when risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) were counted versus calculating risk using Framingham risk equations. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 1998 guidelines with guidelines previously published by the National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States and the 1988 Canadian Consensus Conference on Cholesterol and then used Canadian Heart Health Survey data to forecast lipid screening and treatment rates for the Canadian population.
resultsThe Framingham risk equations were more accurate than counting risk factors for predicting CAD risk (areas under the ROC curves, 0.83 [standard deviation (SD) 0.02] v. 0.77 [SD 0.03], p < 0.05). Risk counting was a particularly poor method for predicting risk for women. The 1998 Canadian guidelines identified high-risk individuals more accurately than the earlier guidelines, but the increased accuracy was largely due to a lower false-positive rate or a higher true-negative rate (i.e., increased test specificity). Using the 1998 lipid guidelines we estimate that 5.9 million Canadians currently free of cardiovascular disease would be eligible for lipid screening and 322,705 (5.5%) would require therapy.
interpretationCalculating risk using risk equations is a more accurate method to identify people at high risk for CAD than counting the number of risk factors present, especially for women, and the 1998 Canadian lipid screening guidelines are significantly better at identifying high-risk patients than the 1988 guidelines. Many of our findings were incorporated into the new 2000 guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11107461PMC80320W2142098166What 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.