Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- The impact of physician-nurse task shifting in primary care on the course of disease: a systematic review.Human resources for health · 2015Pooled it
- Substitution of physicians by nurses in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Long-term cost effectiveness of cardiac secondary prevention in primary care in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017Trial
- Impact of a nurse-led programme on comorbidity management and impact of a patient self-assessment of disease activity on the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results of a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (COMEDRA).Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2015Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: results from the KORINNA study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2015Trial
- Trial
- The PreCardio-study protocol--a randomized clinical trial of a multidisciplinary electronic cardiovascular prevention programme.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2007Trial
- The Effect of Nurse-Led Intervention on Limiting Health Costs of Cardiovascular Diseases in Chinese Adults.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of nurse-led heart failure clinic: A systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2024Review
- Prevalence of coronary artery disease and its risk factors in Majmaah City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017Review
- Multimorbidity in chronic disease: impact on health care resources and costs.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2016Review
- Optimizing chronic disease management mega-analysis: economic evaluation.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2013Review
- Relative cost effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in selected patient subgroups with existing coronary heart disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
- Chronic disease management in Sub-Saharan Africa: whose business is it?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2009Review
- Article
- An intervention program to reduce the number of hospitalizations of elderly patients in a primary care clinic.BMC health services research · 2008Article
- Nurse led care: nurses are autonomous professionals delivering expert care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byNurse led care.2005
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo establish the cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease based on four years' follow up of a randomised controlled trial.
designCost effectiveness analysis.
setting19 general practices in north east Scotland.
participants1343 patients (673 in intervention group and 670 in control group, as originally randomised) aged under 80 years with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound.
interventionNurse led clinics to promote medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention.
main outcome measuresCosts of clinics; overall costs to health service; and cost per life year and per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental gain in intervention group compared with control group.
resultsThe cost of the intervention (clinics and drugs) was 136 pounds sterling (254 dollars; 195 euros) per patient higher (1998-9 prices) in the intervention group, but the difference in other NHS costs, although lower for the intervention group, was not statistically significant. Overall, 28 fewer deaths occurred in the intervention group leading to a gain in mean life years per patient of 0.110 and of 0.124 QALYs. The incremental cost per life year saved was 1236 pounds sterling and that per QALY was 1097 pounds sterling.
conclusionNurse led clinics for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care seem to be cost effective compared with most interventions in health care, with the main gains in life years saved.
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.