ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[The use of the Framingham-REGICOR equation in a primary care centre. Impact on primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesTo evaluate the adequacy of cardiovascular primary prevention by calculating cardiovascular risk (CVR) with 2 different equations and to evaluate the economic impact of the resulting drug expenditure. DESIGN. By means of a transversal study of all the new cases of lipaemia diagnosed, patients were classified in 2 CVR categories (> or =20% and <20%). The Framingham-Wilson (FW) and Framingham-REGICOR (FR) equations were used to analyse the difference between observed treatments (really prescribed) and expected treatments. Costs were compared.
settingBarceloneta PCC, Barcelona, Spain. PATIENTS: Ninety-two cases of lipaemia (2002 and 2003) that met the following inclusion criteria: no coronary history, no taking of lipid-lowering drugs, and age between 35 and 74. There were 10 losses in the 92 individuals through lack of a variable for calculating CVR.
resultsAccording to the clinical criterion, 22 of the 82 patients were treated with medication (26.82%). The expected proportion of patients treated when the FW equation was used was 24.39% (20/82); and was 0% (0/82) with the FR equation. On applying the FW equation, it was seen that 12 of 22 patients treated and 10 of 60 patients not treated did not receive the correct drug treatment. If the mean cost per patient treated and per year at the PCC is applied to the new cases, there is a 9.09% reduction (euro 479.2) for the FW equation and 100% (euro 5271.2) for the FR equation.
conclusionsThe use of one or other algorithm for calculating CVR entails pertinent differences in clinical practice and expenditure. All patients in primary prevention must receive non-pharmacological treatment.
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.