Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11679383›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2001

Randomised trials of secondary prevention programmes in coronary heart disease: systematic review.

F A McAlister, F M Lawson, K K Teo, P W Armstrong

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 343 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Primary care organisational interventions for secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Long-term cost effectiveness of cardiac secondary prevention in primary care in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

F A McAlisterDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Finlay.McAlister@ualberta.ca
F M Lawson
K K Teo
P W Armstrong
University of Alberta · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Alberta Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether multidisciplinary disease management programmes for patients with coronary heart disease improve processes of care and reduce morbidity and mortality. DATA SOURCES: Randomised clinical trials of disease management programmes in patients with coronary heart disease were identified by searching Medline 1966-2000, Embase 1980-99, CINAHL 1982-99, SIGLE 1980-99, the Cochrane controlled trial register, the Cochrane effective practice and organisation of care study register, and bibliographies of published studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were selected and data were extracted independently by two investigators, and summary risk ratios were calculated by using both the random effects model and the fixed effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 12 trials (9803 patients with coronary heart disease) were identified. Disease management programmes had positive impacts on processes of care. Patients randomised to these programmes were more likely to be prescribed efficacious drugs (risk ratio 2.14 (95% confidence interval 1.92 to 2.38) for lipid lowering drugs, 1.19 (1.07 to 1.32) for beta blockers, and 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) for antiplatelet agents). Five out of seven trials evaluating risk factor profiles showed significantly greater improvements with these programmes in comparison with usual care (with effect sizes in the moderate range). Summary risk ratios were 0.91 (0.79 to 1.04) for all cause mortality, 0.94 (0.80 to 1.10) for recurrent myocardial infarction, and 0.84 (0.76 to 0.94) for admission to hospital. Five of the eight trials evaluating quality of life or functional status reported better outcomes in the intervention arms. Only three of these trials reported the costs of the intervention-the interventions were cost saving in two cases.

conclusionsDisease management programmes improve processes of care, reduce admissions to hospital, and enhance quality of life or functional status in patients with coronary heart disease. The programmes' impact on survival and recurrent infarctions, their cost effectiveness, and the optimal mix of components remain uncertain.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-AntagonistsCoronary DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ManagementHospitalizationHumansHypolipidemic AgentsPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceRiskTreatment OutcomeAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsHypolipidemic AgentsPlatelet Aggregation Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID11679383
PMCPMC58658
OpenAlexW2059196353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.