ArticleBMC family practice2007
Barriers to apply cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care: a postal survey.
Article in BMC family practice, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012) : the fifth joint task force of the European society of cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts).International journal of behavioral medicine · 2012Guideline
- Mismatch between self-perceived and calculated cardiometabolic disease risk among participants in a prevention program for cardiometabolic disease: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2020Trial
- Deep learning analysis of single-lead electrocardiograms enables pragmatic heart failure risk assessment in the general population.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Association between trabecular bone score and cardiovascular outcomes: a population-level historical cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Refined selection of individuals for preventive cardiovascular disease treatment with a transformer-based risk model.The Lancet. Digital health · 2025Article
- Redefining digital health interfaces with large language models.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- FRAX predicts cardiovascular risk in women undergoing osteoporosis screening: the Manitoba bone mineral density registry.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024Article
- Influence of research evidence on the use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in primary care: an exploratory qualitative interview study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Predicting mortality and hospitalization in heart failure using machine learning: A systematic literature review.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
- Machine learning and statistical methods for predicting mortality in heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2021Review
- Prediction of short-term mortality in acute heart failure patients using minimal electronic health record data.BioData mining · 2021Article
- GPs' familiarity with and use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules: a UK survey study.BJGP open · 2020Article
- Predicting High-Risk Patients and High-Risk Outcomes in Heart Failure.Heart failure clinics · 2020Review
- Article
- Is ProACS Score Just another Risk Stratification Score, or is it Ready for Implementation in Clinical Practice?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2019Article
- Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019Review
- Predictive Score for Identifying Survival and Recurrence Risk Profiles in Patients Undergoing Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: The I-VT Score.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2018Article
- Validating a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict 30-Day Re-Admissions in Patients With Heart Failure: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Evaluation of statin utilization in the Republic of Macedonia during 2013-2016.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough cardiovascular prediction rules are recommended by guidelines to evaluate global cardiovascular risk for primary prevention, they are rarely used in primary care. Little is known about barriers for application. The objective of this study was to evaluate barriers impeding the application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary prevention.
methodsWe performed a postal survey among general physicians in two Swiss Cantons by a purpose designed questionnaire.
results356 of 772 dispatched questionnaires were returned (response rate 49.3%). About three quarters (74%) of general physicians rarely or never use cardiovascular prediction rules. Most often stated barriers to apply prediction rules among rarely- or never-users are doubts concerning over-simplification of risk assessment using these instruments (58%) and potential risk of (medical) over-treatment (54%). 57% report that the numerical information resulting from prediction rules is often not helpful for decision-making in practice.
conclusionIf regular application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care is in demand additional interventions are needed to increase acceptance of these tools for patient management among general physicians.
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.