ArticleAtencion primaria2009
[Improved effectiveness in the management of cardiovascular risk among type 2 diabetic patients in primary health care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- [Cardiovascular risk factors and Primary Care: evaluation and intervention].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
- [Towards the necessary implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines].Atencion primaria · 2010Article
- [Can we improve the implementation of clinical practice guidelines?].Atencion primaria · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the impact of the implementation of a guidelines in the assessment of cardiovascular risk in high-risk patients (type 2 diabetes) in health centres, and to analyse the appropriateness of antihypertensive and antiplatelet treatment in diabetic patients.
designQuasi-experimental, non-randomised, prospective study with concurrent control group. PLACEMENT: Two health centres in Málaga.
participantsGeneral practitioners of the two centres.
interventionsThe guideline was implemented through a multifaceted intervention in family physicians in the experimental centre. MAIN OUTCOMES: Rate of cardiovascular risk assessment in high risk population. Secondary: appropriateness of antihypertensive and antiplatelet treatment.
resultsLarge differences were detected in the cardiovascular risk assessment, improving in the experimental group (74.36% vs. 7.63%; RR = 9.74; 95% CI, 5.15-18.43; P = .0001). Similarly, the antiplatelet use was more in line with the guidelines recommendations in the intervention group (51.28% vs. 36.44%; RR = 1.407; 95% CI, 1.04-1.89; P = .026), and in antihypertensive drugs, although with no statistical significance (80% vs. 66.27%; RR = 1.207; 95% CI, 0.99-1.46).
conclusionsA multifaceted intervention for the implementation of a guideline for the management of high risk cardiovascular patients, improves the adherence to effective interventions by family physicians.
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.