Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16258794›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Kardiologie2005

[Total risk for cardiovascular disease. At what point is medical prophylactic medication useful?].

H Gohlke, C von Schacky

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H GohlkeKlinische Kardiologie II, Herz-Zentrum Bad Krozingen, Südring 15, 79189 Bad Krozingen, Germany. helmut.gohlke@herzzentrum.de
C von Schacky

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the epidemiological importance of coronary artery disease: cardiovascular events are rare from the individual viewpoint. There is considerable uncertainty when to start medical treatment. A given risk factor modification results in a relative risk reduction independent of the global risk. Therefore the global risk determines the absolute benefit of a preventive measure. The global risk can be estimated using different scoring systems. Using the global risk and the expected relative risk reduction, the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one event or cardiac death can be calculated. The NNT is a measure for the usefulness of a preventive intervention. A NNT of <200 appears acceptable for primary prevention. This can be achieved with pharmacological preventive strategies if the global risk of 10 years is > or =20%. As age is one of the most important risk predictors the need for treatment at comparable risk factor constellations is age dependent. Risk stratification with estimation of the NNT is therefore important for the decision to treat or not to treat.

Indexed as

Proportional Hazards ModelsCardiotonic AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesGermanyHumansPreventive MedicineRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeCardiotonic Agents

Identifiers

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.