Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12386042›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002

Efficacy of case method learning in general practice for secondary prevention in patients with coronary artery disease: randomised controlled study.

Anna Kiessling, Peter Henriksson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04204109 (Interprofessional Versus Monoprofessional Case-based Learning in Childhood Cancer and the Effect on Healthcare Professionals' Interprofessional Attitudes), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04204109 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Interprofessional Versus Monoprofessional Case-based Learning in Childhood Cancer and the Effect on Healthcare Professionals' Interprofessional Attitudes: a Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRigshospitalet, DenmarkRan2020 to 2020Enrolled49ConditionsInterprofessional Education, Continuing Professional Development, Education, Case-based LearningArmsInterprofessional case-based learning
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Barriers to detecting and treating hypercholesterolaemia in patients with ischaemic heart disease: primary care perceptions.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005
    Article
  18. Participatory learning: a Swedish perspective.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2004
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anna KiesslingCentre for Clinical Education, Danderyd University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, SE-182 88 Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter Henriksson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo study the efficacy of case method learning, for general practitioners, on patients' lipid concentrations in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

designProspective controlled trial.

settingSödertälje, Stockholm County, Sweden.

participants255 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease.

interventionGuidelines were mailed to all general practitioners (n=54) and presented at a common lecture. General practitioners who were randomised to the intervention group participated in recurrent case method learning dialogues at their primary healthcare centres during a two year period. A locally well known cardiologist served as a facilitator.

main outcome measureConcentration of low density lipoprotein cholesterol at baseline and after two years. Analysis according to intention to treat (intervention and control groups (n=88)) was based on group affiliation at baseline.

resultsLow density lipoprotein cholesterol was reduced by 0.5 mmol/l (95% confidence interval 0.2 to 0.8 mmol/l) (9.3% (2.9% to 15.8%)) from baseline in patients in the intervention group and by 0.5 (0.1 to 0.9) mmol/l compared with controls (P<0.05). No change occurred in the control group (0.0 (-0.2 to 0.2) mmol/l). Low density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased by 0.6 (0.4 to 0.8) mmol/l in a group of patients who received specialist care.

conclusionCase method learning resulted in a lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol in the primary care patients with coronary artery disease comparable to that achieved at a specialist clinic. Conventional presentation of practice guidelines had no effect.

Indexed as

Cholesterol, LDLConfidence IntervalsCoronary Artery DiseaseEducation, Medical, ContinuingFamily PracticeHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesSwedenCholesterol, LDL

Identifiers

PMID12386042
PMCPMC129638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.