Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22084264›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine

Translating cholesterol guidelines into primary care practice: a multimodal cluster randomized trial.

Charles B Eaton, Donna R Parker, Jeffrey Borkan, Jerome McMurray, Mary B Roberts, Bing Lu, Roberta Goldman, David K Ahern

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Patient-centered education in dyslipidemia management: a systematic review.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2022
    Review
  9. The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Physicians' behavior following changes in LDL cholesterol target goals.Israel journal of health policy research · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Charles B EatonDepartment of Family Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. Charles_Eaton@mhri.org
Donna R Parker
Jeffrey Borkan
Jerome McMurray
Mary B Roberts
Bing Lu
Roberta Goldman
David K Ahern

Funding

Translating ATP III Cholesterol Management Guidelines *R01HL070804 · NHLBI · MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF RHODE ISLAND · PI EATON, CHARLES B · 2002 to 2006
$2.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS 1 R01 HL070804NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL070804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PURPOSE We wanted to determine whether an intervention based on patient activation and a physician decision support tool was more effective than usual care for improving adherence to National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines. METHODS A 1-year cluster randomized controlled trial was performed using 30 primary care practices (4,105 patients) in southeastern New England. The main outcome was the percentage of patients screened for hyperlipidemia and treated to their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol goals. RESULTS After 1 year of intervention, both randomized practice groups improved screening (89% screened), and 74% of patients in both groups were at their LDL and non-HDL cholesterol goals (P <.001). Using intent-to-treat analysis, we found no statistically significant differences between practice groups in screening or percentage of patients who achieved LDL and non-HDL cholesterol goals. Post hoc analysis showed practices who made high use of the patient activation kiosk were more likely to have patients screened (odds ratio [OR] = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.97-3.27) compared with those who made infrequent or no use. Additionally, physicians who made high use of decision support tools were more likely to have their patients at their LDL cholesterol goals (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50) and non-HDL goals (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.46) than low-use or no-use physicians. CONCLUSION This study showed null results with the intent-to-treat analysis regarding the benefits of a patient activation and a decision support tool in improving cholesterol management in primary care practices. Post hoc analysis showed a potential benefit in practices that used the e-health tools more frequently in screening and management of dyslipidemia. Further research on how to incorporate and increase adoption of user-friendly, patient-centered e-health tools to improve screening and management of chronic diseases and their risk factors is warranted.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareAdultAnticholesteremic AgentsCholesterol, HDLCholesterol, LDLComputer-Assisted InstructionComputer TerminalsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansHyperlipidemiasIntention to Treat AnalysisMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedAnticholesteremic AgentsCholesterol, HDLCholesterol, LDL

Identifiers

PMID22084264
PMCPMC3252191

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.