ArticleThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2009
From evidence to practice: consensus in cardiovascular risk assessment and diabetes.
Article in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rigorously developed evidence based practice guidelines are necessary to promote clinical interventions that are consistent and most effective. Recommendations for treatment should be linked clearly to proven reduction in absolute risk, expressed as number needed to treat, rather than being based on the more commonly quoted and potentially misleading reduction in relative risk. Data published since 2003 has been incorporated in a 2009 revision of the New Zealand guideline for assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. Important changes are the decrease in optimal levels of LDL-C from <or= 2.5 mmol/L to <or= 2.0 mmol/L, the provision of a risk trajectory tool for younger subjects, and the removal of the metabolic syndrome from risk assessment. A review of emerging risk factors concluded that none are suitable for use in routine risk assessment, confirming the statement in the 2003 guideline. The revision allows HbA1c as a screening test for diabetes and data to allow the use of this analyte in cardiovascular risk assessment is being gathered. The use of HbA1c as a diagnostic test for diabetes was seriously considered and this foreshadowed very recent international recommendations in this area. Such a use will be the subject of vigorous debate in the immediate future.
Identifiers
20011210PMC2791771W2198761528What 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.