ArticleBMC family practice2004
Evidence-based cardiovascular care in the community: a population-based cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2004. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Lack of improvement in outpatient management of congestive heart failure in the United States.Archives of internal medicine · 2010Article
- The effect of place of residence on access to invasive cardiac services following acute myocardial infarction.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2009Article
- Developing high-specificity anti-hypertensive alerts by therapeutic state analysis of electronic prescribing records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIschaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure are common and important conditions in family practice. Effective treatments may be underutilized, particularly in women and the elderly. The objective of the study was to determine the rate of prescribing of evidence-based cardiovascular medications and determine if these differed by patient age or sex.
methodsWe conducted a two-year cross-sectional study involving all hospitals in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. Subjects were all patients admitted with ischaemic heart disease with or without congestive heart failure between 15 October 1997 and 14 October 1999. The main measure was the previous outpatient use of recommended medications. Chi-square analyses followed by multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine age-sex differences.
resultsUsage of recommended medications varied from approximately 60% for beta-blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors to 90% for antihypertensive agents. Patients aged 75 and over were significantly less likely than younger patients to be taking any of the medication classes. Following adjustment for age, there were no significant differences in medication use by sex except among women aged 75 and older who were more likely to be taking beta-blockers than men in the same age group.
conclusionsThe use of evidence-based cardiovascular medications is rising and perhaps approaching reasonable levels for some drug classes. Family physicians should ensure that all eligible patients (prior myocardial infarction, congestive failure) are offered beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors.
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.