ReviewThe Canadian journal of cardiology2008
AGREEing on Canadian cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines.
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.
- Rethinking Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention in the Digital Era: Patient Empowerment, Adherence and Optimisation of Guideline-based Care.European cardiology · 2026Review
- Temporal Patterns in Blood Pressure Management Before and After Recent Clinical Trials and Guideline Recommendations.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the management of mental health complications after mild traumatic brain injury.Concussion (London, England) · 2021Article
- PAR-Q+ and ePARmed-X+: new risk stratification and physical activity clearance strategy for physicians and patients alike.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2013Article
- Quality assessment of physical activity recommendations within clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardio-metabolic risk factors in people with schizophrenia.Community mental health journal · 2011Review
- Harmonization of guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease: the C-CHANGE Initiative.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011Article
- Wait, not so fast. Are the new American Heart Association endocarditis prophylaxis guidelines safe, and where is the proof?Paediatrics & child health · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), particularly the routine implementation of evidence-based cardiovascular health maintenance and disease management recommendations, affords both expert and nonexpert practitioners the opportunity to achieve better, and at least theoretically similar, patient outcomes. However, health care practitioners are often stymied in their efforts to follow even well-researched and well-written CPGs as a consequence of contradictory information. The purposeful integration and harmonization of Canadian cardiovascular CPGs, regardless of their specific risk factor or clinical management focus, is critical to their widespread acceptance and implementation. This level of cooperation and coordination among CPG groups and organizations would help to ensure that their clinical practice roadmaps (ie, best practice recommendations) contain clear, concise and complementary, rather than contradictory, patient care information. Similarly, the application of specific tools intended to improve the quality of CPGs, such as the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) assessment tool, may also lead to improvements in CPG quality and potentially enhance their acceptance and implementation.
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.