Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19372118›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

Sociodemographic variations in the contribution of secondary drug prevention to stroke survival at middle and older ages: cohort study.

Rosalind Raine, Wun Wong, Gareth Ambler, Sarah Hardoon, Irene Petersen, Richard Morris, Mel Bartley, David Blane

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Why is controlling blood pressure after stroke so difficult?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2013
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Effect of socioeconomic status on secondary prevention of stroke.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2011
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rosalind RaineDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT. r.raine@ucl.ac.uk
Wun Wong
Gareth Ambler
Sarah Hardoon
Irene Petersen
Richard Morris
Mel Bartley
David Blane
University College London · GBImperial College London · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity College Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601726Medical Research Council G0701739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the extent to which secondary drug prevention for patients with stroke in routine primary care varies by sex, age, and socioeconomic circumstances, and to quantify the effect of secondary drug prevention on one year mortality by sociodemographic group.

designCohort study using individual patient data from the health improvement network primary care database.

settingEngland.

participants12 830 patients aged 50 or more years from 113 general practices who had a stroke between 1995 and 2005 and who survived the first 30 days after the stroke.

main outcome measuresMultivariable associations between odds of receiving secondary prevention after a stroke, and sex, age group, and socioeconomic circumstances; hazard ratios for all cause mortality from 31 days after the stroke and within the first year among patients receiving treatment and by social group; and probabilities of one year mortality for social factors of interest and treatment.

resultsOnly 25.6% of men and 20.8% of women received secondary prevention. Receipt of secondary prevention did not vary by socioeconomic circumstances or by sex. Older patients were, however, substantially less likely to receive treatment. The adjusted odds ratio for 80-89 year olds compared with 50-59 year olds was 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.69). This was because older people were less likely to receive lipid lowering drugs-for example, the adjusted odds ratio for 80-89 year olds compared with 50-59 year olds was 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.59). Secondary prevention was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 59). On average, mortality within the first year was 5.7% for patients receiving treatment compared with 11.1% for patients not receiving treatment. There was little evidence that the effect of treatment differed between the social groups examined.

conclusionUnder-treatment among older people with stroke in routine primary care cannot be justified given the lack of evidence on variations in effectiveness of treatment by age.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsHumansHypolipidemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsStrokeAntihypertensive AgentsFibrinolytic AgentsHypolipidemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID19372118
PMCPMC2669853
OpenAlexW2092907596

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.