Trial reportHeart (British Cardiac Society)2006
Prevention of cardiovascular diseases: focus on modifiable cardiovascular risk.
Trial report in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coatings in Decellularized Vascular Scaffolds for the Establishment of a Functional Endothelium: A Scoping Review of Vascular Graft Refinement.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Different distribution of cardiovascular risk factors according to ethnicity: a study in a high risk population.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2008Article
- Managing cardiovascular risk: the need for change.Journal of human hypertension · 2008Article
- Coping with methodological dilemmas; about establishing the effectiveness of interventions in routine medical practice.BMC health services research · 2006Article
- Decision-making using absolute cardiovascular risk reduction and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: a case study.Cardiovascular journal of AfricaArticle
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
objectiveTo determine whether the use of a 20% absolute risk threshold for cardiovascular disease as recommended in current guidelines leads to exclusion of patients with a substantial modifiable risk (> or = 5%).
methodsData collected within the framework of a randomised controlled trial in three primary health care centres located in deprived neighbourhoods were analysed. The 10 year absolute risk and the modifiable part of risk were calculated by using the Framingham risk equation. Among patients with a modifiable risk reduction of > or = 5% (number needed to treat < or = 20) the characteristics and risk factors of patients with an absolute risk > or = 20% and those with an absolute risk < 20% were compared.
results293 patients aged 30-70 years at risk of developing cardiovascular disease were included, of whom 66% were women and 36% were of Dutch origin. Of all patients, 33% had an absolute risk > or = 20% and 61% had a modifiable risk > or = 5%. Of those at > or = 20% absolute risk, a vast majority (98%) had a modifiable risk > or = 5%. Among those with an absolute risk < 20%, 43% had a modifiable risk > or = 5%; this group, who were relatively young and predominantly women, constituted 29% of the entire study population.
conclusionsTargeting preventive strategies at a 10 year absolute risk > or = 20% leads to exclusion of a large group of relatively young, predominantly female patients. In total, about one quarter had an absolute risk < 20% but a modifiable risk > or = 5% and should therefore benefit from intervention.
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.