Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12542840›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2003

Implementing guidelines in primary care: can population impact measures help?

Richard F Heller, Richard Edwards, Patrick McElduff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

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

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Helping to prioritise interventions for depression and schizophrenia: use of Population Impact Measures.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2006
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Richard F HellerEvidence for Population Health Unit, School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, The Medical School, The University of Manchester, UK. dick.heller@man.ac.uk
Richard Edwards
Patrick McElduff

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care organisations are faced with implementing a large number of guideline recommendations. We present methods by which the number of eligible patients requiring treatment, and the relative benefits to the whole population served by a general practice or Primary Care Trust, can be calculated to help prioritise between different guideline recommendations.

methodsWe have developed measures of population impact, "Number to be Treated in your Population (NTP)" and "Number of Events Prevented in your Population (NEPP)". Using literature-based estimates, we have applied these measures to guidelines for pharmacological methods of secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) for a hypothetical general practice population of 10,000.

resultsImplementation of the NICE guidelines for the secondary prevention of MI will require 176 patients to be treated with aspirin, 147 patients with beta-blockers and with ACE-Inhibitors and 157 patients with statins (NTP). The benefit expressed as NEPP will range from 1.91 to 2.96 deaths prevented per year for aspirin and statins respectively. The drug cost per year varies from euro 1940 for aspirin to euro 60,525 for statins. Assuming incremental changes only (for those not already on treatment), aspirin post MI will be added for 37 patients and produce 0.40 of a death prevented per year at a drug cost of euro 410 and statins will be added for 120 patients and prevent 2.26 deaths per year at a drug cost of euro 46,150. An appropriate policy might be to reserve the use of statins until eligible patients have been established on aspirin, ACE-Inhibitors and beta blockers.

conclusionsThe use of population impact measures could help the Primary Care Organisation to prioritise resource allocation, although the results will vary according to local conditions which should be taken into account before the measures are used in practice.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHealth StatusPractice Guidelines as TopicAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAgedAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAspirinCardiovascular AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsFibrinolytic AgentsHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPrimary Health CareAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAspirinCardiovascular AgentsFibrinolytic AgentsHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID12542840
PMCPMC149228

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.