Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2010
Effects of internet-based tailored advice on the use of cholesterol-lowering interventions: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2010. The graph read 3 numbers from its abstract, feeding 2 cells of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. It is linked to trial NCT00220974 (Internet-Based Cholesterol Assessment Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against
No differences were found between the randomized groups for the secondary outcomes of "discussed treatment with a health professional" (% difference = -3.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.16 to 0.19, P = .08), "had their cholesterol checked" (% difference = -1.5%, 95% CI -5.79 to 2.71, P = .48), "had their blood pressure checked" (% difference = 1.4%, 95% CI -2.55 to 5.34, P = .49) or made a lifestyle change (P values between .49 and .96).
No differences were found between the randomized groups for the secondary outcomes of "discussed treatment with a health professional" (% difference = -3.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.16 to 0.19, P = .08), "had their cholesterol checked" (% difference = -1.5%, 95% CI -5.79 to 2.71, P = .48), "had their blood pressure checked" (% difference = 1.4%, 95% CI -2.55 to 5.34, P = .49) or made a lifestyle change (P values between .49 and .96).
No differences were found between the randomized groups for the secondary outcomes of "discussed treatment with a health professional" (% difference = -3.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.16 to 0.19, P = .08), "had their cholesterol checked" (% difference = -1.5%, 95% CI -5.79 to 2.71, P = .48), "had their blood pressure checked" (% difference = 1.4%, 95% CI -2.55 to 5.34, P = .49) or made a lifestyle change (P values between .49 and .96).
clause the extractor read what became the number
Where it lands on the map
Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.
What it adds to each cell
For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.
Diet, exercise & lifestyle×blood pressure
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →No other readable study in this cell yet. This paper is the evidence.
Diet, exercise & lifestyle×lipids
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →2 readable studies in this cell: 1 favour the treatment, 0 find no difference, 1 favour the comparator.
This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.
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.
Internet-Based Cholesterol Assessment Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Implementation strategies to improve statin utilization in individuals with hypercholesterolemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Implementation science : IS · 2021Pooled it
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Internet-based randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013Pooled it
- Trial
- The Paradigm Shift From Patient to Health Consumer: 20 Years of Value Assessment in Health.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.
backgroundElevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Despite the availability of proven interventions to lower LDL cholesterol, their use remains subobtimal. Many websites provide interactive, tailored advice on cardiovascular risk in an attempt to help bridge this evidence-practice gap, yet there is little evidence that provision of such a tool is effective in changing practice.
objectivesThe objective was to define the effects on use of cholesterol-lowering interventions of a consumer-targeted tailored advice website.
methodsThis was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial open to any adult Australian with access to the Internet. A total of 2099 participants were randomized. Of these, 45% were male, the mean age of all participants was 56, and 1385 (66%) self-reported hypercholesterolemia. Follow-up information was obtained for 1945 (93%). Participants completed a brief online questionnaire. Individuals assigned to intervention received immediate, fully automated, personally tailored advice (based on current guidelines) regarding the need for commencement of statin therapy, increased statin therapy in those already on treatment, and nondrug intervention strategies. Control group participants were directed to static Web pages providing general information about cholesterol management.
resultsThe primary outcome was the proportion of participants that commenced or increased use of prescribed cholesterol-lowering therapy. Of the total 2099 randomized participants, 304 (14%) met eligibility criteria for cholesterol-lowering therapy but were not prescribed treatment, and 254 (12%) were prescribed treatment but were not achieving the recommended target level. Treatment was commenced or increased in 64 (6.0%) of the 1062 intervention group participants and 79 (7.6%) of the 1037 control group participants (% difference = -1.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.75 to 0.57, P = .15). No differences were found between the randomized groups for the secondary outcomes of "discussed treatment with a health professional" (% difference = -3.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.16 to 0.19, P = .08), "had their cholesterol checked" (% difference = -1.5%, 95% CI -5.79 to 2.71, P = .48), "had their blood pressure checked" (% difference = 1.4%, 95% CI -2.55 to 5.34, P = .49) or made a lifestyle change (P values between .49 and .96).
conclusionsDespite providing specific carefully tailored advice, this website had no detectable effect on cholesterol management strategies. This finding raises considerable uncertainty about the value of Internet-based tools providing tailored advice directly to consumers.
trial registrationNCT00220974; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00220974 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5sdq63rrY).
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.