ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2006
Prescribing behaviour according to Dutch and European guidelines on the management of hypercholesterolaemia (1992-1999).
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of national guidance in changing analgesic prescribing in primary care from 2002 to 2009: an observational database study.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2013Article
- Explanatory model of prescribing behavior in prescription of statins in family practice.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2010Article
- Between-country variation in the utilization of antihypertensive agents: Guidelines and clinical practice.Journal of human hypertension · 2006Article
- A prescription for better prescribing.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe success of the full implementation of a new guideline may depend on the observed discrepancy between daily medical practice developed before the release of the guideline and new treatment recommendations issued by the guideline.
aimTo assess whether the initiation of statin treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in an elderly population was in agreement with guidelines.
methodsData were obtained from the Rotterdam Study, a prospective population-based cohort study consisting of 7983 subjects aged>or=55 years. In the period 1992-1999, all patients starting statins for primary prevention were selected. Treatment eligibility was established according to Dutch guidelines based on considerations of cost effectiveness (1998) and European guidelines based on clinical effectiveness (1998 and 2003).
resultsOnly 5.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1, 8.3] of the 299 subjects starting statins for primary prevention met the eligibility criteria of the Dutch guidelines. Most patients (92.0%, 95% CI 88.9, 95.1) met the criteria of the 2003 European guidelines. Patients who did not meet any eligibility criteria were female and had one or less cardiovascular risk factor, except for two patients with total cholesterol levels<5 mmol l-1 prior to start of statin therapy.
conclusionsThe use of statins was in agreement with the most recent European guidelines in over 90% of elderly patients who started statins for primary prevention, but in only 6% of these patients according to the Dutch guidelines. As long as existing guidelines are as discrepant as they are now, variation in agreement between physicians' prescribing and guideline recommendations is unavoidable.
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.