ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2007
Which population groups should be targeted for cardiovascular prevention? A modelling study based on the Norwegian Hordaland Health Study (HUSK).
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does present use of cardiovascular medication reflect elevated cardiovascular risk scores estimated ten years ago? A population based longitudinal observational study.BMC public health · 2011Article
- When do adolescents become smokers? Annual seven-year population-based follow-up of tobacco habits among 2000 Swedish pupils--an open cohort study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2009Article
- Self-reported cognitive and emotional effects and lifestyle changes shortly after preventive cardiovascular consultations in general practice.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2009Article
- Implementing the European guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in the primary care setting in Cyprus: lessons learned from a health care services study.BMC health services research · 2008Article
- Did a health dialogue matter? Self-reported cardiovascular disease and diabetes 11 years after health screening.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2008Article
- Secular trends in cardiovascular risk factors with a 36-year perspective: observations from 38- and 50-year-olds in the Population Study of Women in Gothenburg.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2008Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess level of cardiovascular risk factors in a non-selected, middle-aged population. To estimate the proportion target for risk intervention according to present guidelines and according to different cut-off levels for two risk algorithms.
designPopulation survey, modelling study.
settingThe Norwegian Hordaland Health Study (HUSK) 1997-99. SUBJECTS: A total of 22 289 persons born in 1950-57.
main outcome measuresOwn and relatives' cardiovascular morbidity, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment, smoking, blood pressure, cholesterol. Framingham and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) algorithms. The European guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice were applied to estimate size of risk groups.
resultsSome 9.7% of men and 7.6% of women had CVD, diabetes mellitus, a high level of one specific risk factor, or received lipid-lowering or antihypertensive treatment. Applying a SCORE (60 years) cut-off level at 5% to the rest of the population selected 52.4% of men and 0.8% of women into a primary prevention group, while a cut-off level at 8% included 22.0% and 0.06% respectively. A cut-off level for the Framingham score (60 years) of 20% selected 43.6% of men and 4.7% of women, while a cut-off level of 25% selected 25.6% of men and 1.8% of women.
conclusionThe findings illustrate how choices regarding risk estimation highly affect the size of the target population. Modelling studies are important when preparing guidelines, to address implications for resource allocation and risk of medicalization. The population share to be targeted for primary prevention ought to be estimated, including the impact of various cut-off points for risk algorithms on the size of the risk population.
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.