Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17923653›Full record

Trial reportCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2007

One-year follow-up of a therapeutic lifestyle intervention targeting cardiovascular disease risk.

Andrew Wister, Nadine Loewen, Holly Kennedy-Symonds, Brian McGowan, Bonnie McCoy, Joel Singer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Is a targeted and planned GP intervention effective in cardiovascular disease prevention? A randomized controlled trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2014
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrew WisterDepartment of Gerontology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC. wister@sfu.ca
Nadine Loewen
Holly Kennedy-Symonds
Brian McGowan
Bonnie McCoy
Joel Singer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this study, we tested the efficacy of a low-intensity lifestyle intervention aimed at reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease among mid-life individuals.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned either to receive a health report card with counselling (from a Telehealth nurse) on smoking, exercise, nutrition and stress or to receive usual care. The patients were divided into 2 groups on the basis of risk: the primary prevention group, with a Framingham risk score of 10% or higher (intervention, n = 157; control, n = 158), and the secondary prevention group, who had a diagnosis of coronary artery disease (intervention, n = 153; control, n = 143). The primary outcome was a change in the Framingham global risk score between baseline and 1-year follow-up. Data were analyzed separately for the 2 prevention groups using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for covariates.

resultsWithin the primary prevention group, there were statistically significant changes for the treatment group relative to the controls, from baseline to year 1, in Framingham score (intervention, -3.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.98 to -2.22]; control, -1.30 [95% CI -2.18 to -0.42]; p < 0.01) and scores for total cholesterol (intervention, -0.41 [95% CI -0.59 to -0.23]; control, -0.14 [95% CI -0.32 to 0.04]; p < 0.05), systolic blood pressure (intervention, -7.49 [95% CI -9.97 to -5.01]; control, -3.58 [95% CI -6.08 to -1.08]; p < 0.05), nutrition level (intervention, 0.30 [95% CI 0.13 to 0.47]; control, -0.05 [95% CI -0.22 to 0.12]; p < 0.01), and health confidence (intervention, 0.20 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.31]; control, 0.04 [95% CI -0.07 to 0.15]; p < 0.05), with adjustment for covariates. No significant changes in outcome variables were found for the secondary prevention group.

interpretationWe found evidence for the efficacy of an intervention addressing multiple risk factors for primary prevention at 1 year using Framingham risk score report cards and telephone counselling. (Requirement for clinical trial registration waived [enrolment completed before requirement became applicable].).

Indexed as

Life StyleOutcome Assessment, Health CareBlood PressureBritish ColumbiaCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterolCoronary Artery DiseaseCounselingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityNutrition AssessmentCholesterol

Identifiers

PMID17923653
PMCPMC1995136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.