ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2007
The effect of screening for cardio-renal risk factors on drug use in the general population.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drugs and the kidney: more than a question of dose.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the effect of a cardio-renal screening programme on desired and undue drug use.
methodsData from the PREVEND cohort (Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENd-stage Disease) were used. The drug use of screened (randomly) selected subjects (n = 2650) was compared with unscreened subjects, matched for age and sex (n = 10 434). Drug use in the overall PREVEND cohort, enriched for albuminuria (n = 6751), was also studied. Screening-related drugs (antihypertensive, antilipidaemic, antidiabetic and antithrombotic) were selected, as well as screening-unrelated drugs (benzodiazepines, drugs for acid-related disorders and painkillers). Time to first prescription after screening is presented as Kaplan-Meier curves.
resultsAfter 6.5 years of follow-up, the incidence of drug use was not significantly different between the screened, randomly selected and unscreened cohorts. Antihypertensives were used by 21.5 and 20.8%, respectively; antilipidaemic 12.8 and 10.2%, antidiabetics 4.0 and 3.9%, and antithrombotic 11.4 and 12.0%. Screening-unrelated drugs were used at comparable frequencies. Compared with the unscreened cohort, screening-related drugs were prescribed more frequently for subjects in the enriched cohort (25.8, 15.5, 5.5 and 13.5% for antihypertensive, antilipidaemic, antidiabetic and antithrombotic, respectively), whereas screening-unrelated drugs were used at comparable frequencies.
conclusionsThe incidence of drug use did not differ between the screened, randomly selected and unscreened cohorts. Screening does not lead to more drug prescription, thus arguing against the fear of undue medicalization after screening. The data also show that, for screening to be successful, it should be performed in a targeted population, such as one enriched for albuminuria.
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.