ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2008
Cholesterol in women at high cardiovascular risk is less successfully treated than in corresponding men. The Skaraborg Hypertension and Diabetes Project.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multifunctional diet improves cardiometabolic-related biomarkers independently of weight changes: an 8-week randomized controlled intervention in healthy overweight and obese subjects.European journal of nutrition · 2016Trial
- Primary care of patients with high cardiovascular risk : Blood pressure, lipid and diabetic target levels and their achievement in Hungary.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2013Article
- A diet based on multiple functional concepts improves cardiometabolic risk parameters in healthy subjects.Nutrition & metabolism · 2012Article
- Understanding adherence to therapeutic guidelines: a multilevel analysis of statin prescription in the Skaraborg Primary Care Database.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the use of lipid-lowering therapy in patients with known coronary heart disease (CHD), cerebrovascular disease or diabetes in a community-based population in Sweden considering expert recommendations.
methodsA random sample of individuals aged > or =40 years who were surveyed in 1993-1994 were revisited 10 years later during 2003-2004 (n = 724). A clinical investigation focused on cardiovascular risk including serum total cholesterol. Information on medical history and current medication was collected in structured interviews.
resultsEighty-two patients (11.3%) reported a history of CHD, including 51 men and 31 women. Fifty-three patients fulfilled criteria for treatment and most of them (85%) were on lipid-lowering therapy. A higher fraction of women were treated; however only 13% of them reached target cholesterol levels compared to 37% of the men (P < 0.001). Sixty-five subjects (9.0%) had diabetes and/or a previous stroke (29 men, 36 women) but no previous CHD. Patients with CHD were more likely to be treated compared to patients with diabetes and/or stroke but no CHD (85.0 vs. 28.5%, OR 6.0, 95% CI 2.2-16.9, P = 0.01). In a total of 79 participants (10.9%) who were on lipid-lowering therapy, women reached a total serum cholesterol level below 5.0 mmol/L less often than men (26.3 vs. 63.4%, P < 0.001).
conclusionsA considerable proportion of patients in primary care were untreated despite current guidelines on lipid-lowering therapy. Treatment outcome in women was less efficient compared with men. Strategies to improve pharmacological treatment in these patients should be developed.
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.