ReviewThe Canadian journal of cardiology2008
Clinical and public health assessment of benefits and risks of statins in primary prevention of coronary events: resolved and unresolved issues.
Review in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural products as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for the management of non-communicable diseases.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
- Targeting NPC1 in Renal Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2024Article
- Article
- Persistence with statin therapy in Hungary.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2013Article
- Practical use of the Framingham risk score in primary prevention: Canadian perspective.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2011Review
- Update on statin-mediated anti-inflammatory activities in atherosclerosis.Seminars in immunopathology · 2009 · on this mapReview
- Statins for children? A word of caution.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer-reviewed, evidence-based recommendations for statin use in primary prevention of cardiovascular events are limited. A narrative review of published randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses was conducted to critically appraise the benefits and risks of statins in primary prevention. Statins effectively reduce plasma concentrations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and death. The greatest benefits are observed in high-risk subjects, such as patients with diabetes or hypertension. Serious cardiovascular events should not be included among serious adverse events because they are efficacy outcomes and are dependent on the baseline risk of patients. Rates of specific serious adverse events, such as cancer and rhabdomyolysis, seem to be similar between the statin and control arms of the clinical trials examined. Thus, the benefits of statins in primary prevention outweigh the risks, particularly among high-risk patients. However, the benefit-risk ratio would likely be optimized through interventions designed to increase persistence and adherence in a real-life setting.
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.