ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology2006
A comparison of Canadian and American guidelines for lipid management using data from the National Cholesterol Education Program Evaluation ProjecT Utilizing Novel E-technology (NEPTUNE) II survey.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unmet need in the hyperlipidaemia population with high risk of cardiovascular disease: a targeted literature review of observational studies.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2016Review
- Approach to identifying and managing atherogenic dyslipidemia: a metabolic consequence of obesity and diabetes.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2013Review
- Differences in statin usage and target-goal achievement between departments at the same hospital.PloS one · 2012Article
- Effect of atorvastatin therapy on borderline vulnerable lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2011Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United States' National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III and the Canadian Working Group on Hypercholesterolemia and Other Dyslipidemias (CWG) have each issued guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemia.
objectiveThe present analysis compared the percentage of patients reaching target lipid levels according to NCEP and CWG guidelines among participants of the NCEP Evaluation ProjecT Utilizing Novel E-technology (NEPTUNE) II, a survey performed in the United States.
methodsAmerican physicians who were high prescribers of lipid-modifying medications (n=376) each enrolled 10 to 20 consecutive patients from February to September 2003. Medical information, laboratory measurements and treatment plans associated with a single office visit were entered into a personal digital assistant and uploaded to a central database via the Internet.
resultsUnder both sets of guidelines, treatment success was strongly related to risk category (P<0.001). Treatment goal achievement in the low-risk (zero or one risk factor) and moderate-risk (two or more risk factors) categories was not substantially different between NCEP and CWG guidelines; however, in the high-risk category (coronary artery disease [CAD] and risk equivalents [RE]), CWG treatment goals were met less frequently than NCEP goals. NCEP combined low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment goals were met by 39% of hypertriglyceridemic patients (27% in the CAD + CAD RE category). CWG combined low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio treatment goals were met by 38% of hypertriglyceridemic patients (19% in the CAD + CAD RE category).
conclusionsThese data indicate substantial underachievement of treatment goals by patients at high risk under both the CWG and NCEP guidelines. The lower frequency of treatment success in high-risk patients according to the CWG definition indicates that more aggressive treatment is needed to reach CWG goals.
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.