ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2005
Population impact of stricter adherence to recommendations for pharmacological and lifestyle interventions over one year in patients with coronary heart disease.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2005. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of medicines recommended for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome.Revista de saude publica · 2015Article
- The use of epidemiological measures to estimate the impact of primary prevention interventions on CHD, stroke and cancer outcomes: experiences from Herefordshire, UK.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2012Article
- Estimating the potential population impact of stepwise screening strategies for identifying and treating individuals at high risk of Type 2 diabetes: a modelling study.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2012Article
- The population effect of crime and neighbourhood on physical activity: an analysis of 15,461 adults.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2007Article
- Potential population impact of the UK government strategy for reducing the burden of coronary heart disease in England: comparing primary and secondary prevention strategies.Quality & safety in health care · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo assess the potential number of lives saved associated with the full implementation of aspects of the National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD) in England using recently developed population impact measures.
designModelling study.
settingPrimary care. DATA SOURCES: Published data on prevalence of acute myocardial infarction and heart failure, baseline risk of mortality, the relative risk reduction associated with different interventions and the proportion treated, eligible for treatment and adhering to each intervention. MAIN
resultsAdopting the NSF recommendations for pharmacological interventions would prevent an extra 1027 (95% CI 418 to 1994) deaths in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients and an extra 37 899 (95% CI 25 690 to 52 503) deaths in heart failure patients in the first year after diagnosis. Lifestyle based interventions would prevent an extra 848 (95% CI 71 to 1 614) deaths in post-AMI patients and an extra 7249 (95% CI 995 to 16 696) deaths in heart failure patients.
conclusionsMoving from current to "best" practice as recommended in the NSF will have a much greater impact on one year mortality rates among heart failure patients compared with post-AMI patients. Meeting pharmacological based recommendations for heart failure patients will prevent more deaths than meeting lifestyle based recommendations. Population impact numbers can help communicate the impact on a population of the implementation of guidelines and, when created using local data, could help policy makers assess the local impact of implementing a range of health care targets.
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.