Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12392122›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002

Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a randomised trial of training in information management, evidence-based medicine, both or neither: the PIER trial.

Julia Langham, Helen Tucker, David Sloan, Jane Pettifer, Simon Thom, Harry Hemingway

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Towards an Implementation-STakeholder Engagement Model (I-STEM) for improving health and social care services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  8. Cardiovascular risk factor modification among high-risk patients: Do pharmacists play a role?Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC · 2013
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julia LanghamDepartment of Research and Development, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority, London.
Helen Tucker
David Sloan
Jane Pettifer
Simon Thom
Harry Hemingway

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSub-optimal management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients is widespread in primary and secondary care, with risk factors frequently unrecorded or untreated.

aimTo investigate the effectiveness of educational interventions developed in primary care, on recording, prescribing and control of risk factors among all patients recorded by their general practitioner as having CVD. DESIGN OF STUDY: Factorial, duster-randomised controlled trial.

settingPrimary care teams representing the range of practice development in a geographically defined area in inner London.

methodParticipating practices were randomly allocated to one of the four intervention groups: information, evidence, both or neither. Interventions were tailored to suit individual practice needs. At a mean of 19 months after baseline, and three months after the end of intervention, practices carried out the follow-up assessment of recording, treatment, and control of risk factors in the same CVD patients.

resultsAdequate recording of all three risk factors, found inapproximately a third of patients at baseline, increased non-significantly by 10.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.9 to 24.9) in the information (versus not information) group and by 6.6% (95% [CI] = 8.9 to 22.0) in the evidence (versus not evidence) group. Factorial improvements in prescribing and control of risk factors tended not to be significant. Adequate recording of an three risk factors showed the greatest improvement in the information plus evidence group (19.9% increase, P for heterogeneity across the four groups < or = 0.001). Mean change from baseline to follow-up within the four intervention groups suggested improvements in the combined information plus evidence group in cholesterol recording (22.5% increase), prescribing of lipid lowering drugs (4.4% increase) and mean cholesterol (0.7 mmol/l decrease).

conclusionsAdequate risk factor recording did not differ between the information (versus not information) or the evidence (versus not evidence) intervention groups. Combined training in information systems and evidence-based medicine should be considered in the design of future interventions, to improve secondary prevention of CVD.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesEducation, ContinuingEvidence-Based MedicineFamily PracticeFollow-Up StudiesHumansMedical RecordsRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID12392122
PMCPMC1316085

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.