Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15107312›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004

Influence of socioeconomic deprivation on the primary care burden and treatment of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure in general practice in Scotland: population based study.

F A McAlister, N F Murphy, C R Simpson, S Stewart, K MacIntyre, M Kirkpatrick, J Chalmers, A Redpath, S Capewell, J J V McMurray

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Risk of prostate cancer associated with benign prostate disease: a primary care case-control study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

F A McAlisterDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2R7.
N F Murphy
C R Simpson
S Stewart
K MacIntyre
M Kirkpatrick
J Chalmers
A Redpath
S Capewell
J J V McMurray

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine whether there are socioeconomic gradients in the incidence, prevalence, treatment, and follow up of patients with heart failure in primary care.

designPopulation based study.

setting53 general practices (307,741 patients) participating in the Scottish continuous morbidity recording project between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000.

participants2186 adults with heart failure.

main outcome measuresComorbid diagnoses, frequency of visits to general practitioner, and prescribed drugs.

results2186 patients with heart failure were seen (prevalence 7.1 per 1000 population, incidence 2.0 per 1000 population). The age and sex standardised incidence of heart failure increased with greater socioeconomic deprivation, from 1.8 per 1000 population in the most affluent stratum to 2.6 per 1000 population in the most deprived stratum (odds ratio 1.44, P = 0.0003). On average, patients were seen 2.4 times yearly, but follow up rates were less frequent with increasing socioeconomic deprivation (from 2.6 yearly in the most affluent subgroup to 2.0 yearly in the most deprived subgroup, P = 0.00009). Overall, 812 (80.6%) patients were prescribed diuretics, 396 (39.3%) angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, 216 (21.4%) beta blockers, 208 (20.7%) digoxin, and 86 (8.5%) spironolactone. The wide discrepancies in prescribing between different general practices disappeared after adjustment for patient age and sex. Prescribing patterns did not vary by deprivation categories on univariate or multivariate analyses.

conclusionsCompared with affluent patients, socioeconomically deprived patients were 44% more likely to develop heart failure but 23% less likely to see their general practitioner on an ongoing basis. Prescribed treatment did not differ across socioeconomic gradients.

Indexed as

PovertyCardiac Output, LowCost of IllnessFamily PracticeHumansIncidencePatient Acceptance of Health CarePrevalenceScotlandSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID15107312
PMCPMC406324

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.