Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18474884›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine

Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.

Tanja Krones, Heidemarie Keller, Andreas Sönnichsen, Eva-Maria Sadowski, Erika Baum, Karl Wegscheider, Justine Rochon, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 16 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tanja KronesDepartment of General Practice/Family Medicine, Phillips-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany. krones@med.uni-marburg.de
Heidemarie Keller
Andreas Sönnichsen
Eva-Maria Sadowski
Erika Baum
Karl Wegscheider
Justine Rochon
Norbert Donner-Banzhoff

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe wanted to determine the effect of promoting the effective communication of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and shared decision making through disseminating a simple decision aid for use in family practice consultations.

methodsThe study was based on a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (phase III) with continuing medical education (CME) groups of family physicians as the unit of randomization. In the intervention arm, 44 physicians (7 CME groups) consecutively recruited 550 patients in whom cholesterol levels were measured. Forty-seven physicians in the control arm (7 CME groups) similarly included 582 patients. Four hundred sixty patients (83.6%) of the intervention arm and 466 patients (80.1%) of the control arm were seen at follow-up. Physicians attended 2 interactive CME sessions and received a booklet, a paper-based risk calculator, and individual summary sheets for each patient. Control physicians attended 1 CME-session on an alternative topic. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction and participation after the index consultation, change in CVD risk status, and decisional regret at 6 months' follow-up.

resultsIntervention patients were significantly more satisfied with process and result (Patient Participation Scale, difference 0.80, P<.001). Decisional regret was significantly lower at follow-up (difference 3.39, P = .02). CVD risk decreased in both groups without a significant difference between study arms.

conclusionA simple transactional decision aid based on calculating absolute individual CVD risk and promoting shared decision making in CVD prevention can be disseminated through CME groups and may lead to higher patient satisfaction and involvement and less decisional regret, without negatively affecting global CVD risk.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient SatisfactionPhysicians, FamilyPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID18474884
PMCPMC2384995

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.