ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001
Is population coronary heart disease risk screening justified? A discussion of the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease (Standard 4).
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twenty years on from the introduction of the high risk strategy for stroke and cardiovascular disease prevention: a systematic scoping review.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Cascading bedpans and dodgy MOTs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- Prevention of coronary heart disease in people with severe mental illnesses: a qualitative study of patient and professionals' preferences for care.BMC psychiatry · 2006Article
- Cost-effectiveness of new tests to diagnose and treat coronary heart disease.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2005Article
- Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Article
- A dubious future for public health?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard 4 of the National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD) describes population cardiovascular risk screening at primary care level. General practitioners (GPs) are expected to deliver this standard and have their performance monitored as part of their clinical governance programme. Although CHD is an important preventable health problem in the United Kingdom (UK), the effectiveness of primary prevention screening programmes are minimal, even within clinical trial settings, and their cost-effectiveness is not clear. The National Screening Committee has identified clear standards for establishing a screening programme in the UK and the activities described in Standard 4 do not fulfill many of these criteria. Specifically, there are no plans for central organisation and co-ordination, no agreed quality assurance standards, and no uniform system for performance management. The clinical, social, and ethical acceptability of the interventions mandated have not been established, and GPs are left to consider how to redirect resources to achieve the standard. We argue that the benefits of population cardiovascular screening must be established through properly conducted trials and, if a programme is introduced, adequate resources and management structures must first be identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11677709PMC1314131W2138649650What 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.