ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2007
Missed opportunities for secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease in elderly British men from 1999 to 2005: a population-based study.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for improving modifiable risk factor control in the secondary prevention of stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Estimating the potential contribution of stroke treatments and preventative policies to reduce the stroke and ischemic heart disease mortality in Turkey up to 2032: a modelling study.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Article
- Retrospective case review of missed opportunities for primary prevention of stroke and TIA in primary care: protocol paper.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Ambulatory treatment gaps in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.The Permanente journal · 2013Article
- Is primary care a neglected piece of the jigsaw in ensuring optimal stroke care? Results of a national study.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Sociodemographic variations in the contribution of secondary drug prevention to stroke survival at middle and older ages: cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe examined patterns in medication use for secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease in older British men from 1999 to 2005, and investigated socio-demographic and disease-related influences on medication use.
methodsPercentage use of antiplatelet drugs, blood pressure-lowering drugs and statins use was calculated in men, aged 65-87 years in 2005, who had been diagnosed with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) from a population-based cohort based in one general practice in each of 24 British towns.
resultsIn 1999, most men with cerebrovascular disease received antiplatelet drugs (67%). However, a few received blood pressure-lowering drugs (50%) and statins (13%). By 2005, the use of all drug types had increased; at least half of the patients received each type of drug. However, only one-third of patients received all three medication types and combined blood pressure treatment was limited. Older age, a diagnosis of TIA rather than stroke and absence of co-existing coronary heart disease were associated with lower rates of use of specific medication categories.
conclusionDespite improvements in secondary prevention medication use, there is scope for achieving the full potential of these medications, particularly by increasing combination blood pressure treatment and statin use and ensuring that older patients receive the benefits of prevention.
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.