ArticleZeitschrift fur Kardiologie2005
[Comparison of international recommendations for the recognition of asymptomatic high risk patients for a heart attack in Germany].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recommendations of the International Task Force for the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease/International Atherosclerosis Society (ITF/IAS), the US-American Adult Treatment Panel III of the National Cholesterol Education Programs (ATP III) and the 3rd Joint European Guidelines (3JE) for the prevention coronary heart disease (CHD) show good agreement in tertiary prevention. All three guidelines recommend that patients with manifest CHD should have a blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg and LDL-cholesterol below 2.6 mmol/l (100 mg/dl). By contrast, the three recommendations differ with respect to the prevention of cardiovascular events in asymptomatic high risk patients (secondary prevention), notably in the strategy to be used for risk assessment. Both the ITF/IAS guidelines and the 3JE guidelines can be adapted and realized in the various European countries. We therefore compared the prognostic values of the three recommendations by applying them to the data of male participants of the Prospective Cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) Study. The ITF/IAS recommendations show the highest specificity (94.5%), positive predictive value (32.0%) and diagnostic efficacy (90.5%); the 3JE guidelines have the highest sensitivity (64.6%) but lowest specificity (77.9%), positive predictive value (17.5%) and diagnostic efficacy (77.0%). The application of the 3JE recommendations would target 25% of German men aged 35-65 years as cardiovascular high risk patients, by contrast to 7.5% through application of the ITF/IAS guidelines. In view of the limited resources in the public health systemthe application of the ITF/IAS guidelines in Germany appears more appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15668832What 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.