ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003
Comparison of methods to identify individuals at increased risk of coronary disease from the general population.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commentary: point. Blood pressure-lowering treatment should be offered to all patients regardless of blood pressure.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2009Article
- Treatment patterns of hypertension and dyslipidaemia in hypertensive patients at higher and lower risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care in the United Kingdom.Journal of human hypertension · 2007Article
- Methods to identify increased risk of coronary disease in the general population: conclusion is oversimplification.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the guidelines on measurement of cholesterol in the national service framework for coronary heart disease and to compare alternative strategies for identifying people at high risk of coronary disease in the general population.
designComparison of methods (national service framework criteria, Sheffield tables, age threshold of 50 years, estimated risk assessment using fixed cholesterol values) for identifying people with a 10 year coronary event risk of 15% or greater.
settingHealth survey for England 1998. SUBJECTS: 6307 people aged between 30 and 74 years with no history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or angina.
main outcome measuresProportion of the total population selected for measurement of cholesterol and proportion of people at 15% or greater risk identified.
resultsThe national service framework guidelines selected 43.4% (95% confidence interval 42.2% to 44.6%) of the study population for cholesterol measurement and identified 81.2% (80.2% to 82.2%) of those at 15% or greater risk. The Sheffield tables selected 73.1% (72.0% to 74.2%) for cholesterol measurement and identified 99.91% (99.83% to 99.99%) of those at 15% or greater risk. An age threshold of 50 years selected 46.3% (45.1% to 47.5%) for cholesterol measurement and identified 92.8% (92.1% to 93.4%) of those at 15% or greater risk. Estimated risk assessments using fixed cholesterol values selected 17.8% (16.8% to 18.7%) for cholesterol measurement and identified 75.9% (74.8% to 76.9%) of those at 15% or greater risk.
conclusionMeasuring the cholesterol concentration of everyone aged 50 years and over is a simple and efficient method of identifying people at high risk of coronary disease in the general population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.