Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22273080›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2012

Use of global coronary heart disease risk assessment in practice: a cross-sectional survey of a sample of U.S. physicians.

Benjamin Shillinglaw, Anthony J Viera, Teresa Edwards, Ross Simpson, Stacey L Sheridan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. From Calculation to Communication: Using Risk Score Calculators to Inform Clinical Decision Making and Facilitate Patient Engagement.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin ShillinglawDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Anthony J Viera
Teresa Edwards
Ross Simpson
Stacey L Sheridan
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

UNC Clinical Translation Science Award-K12 Scholars Program (KL2)KL2RR025746 · NCRR · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RUNGE, MARSCHALL S. · 2008 to 2011
$9.0M
NCRR NIH HHS KL2RR025746
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment is recommended to guide primary preventive pharmacotherapy. However, little is known about physicians' understanding and use of global CHD risk assessment. Our objective was to examine US physicians' awareness, use, and attitudes regarding global CHD risk assessment in clinical practice, and how these vary by provider specialty.

methodsUsing a web-based survey of US family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists, we examined awareness of tools available to calculate CHD risk, method and use of CHD risk assessment, attitudes towards CHD risk assessment, and frequency of using CHD risk assessment to guide recommendations of aspirin, lipid-lowering and blood pressure (BP) lowering therapies for primary prevention. Characteristics of physicians indicating they use CHD risk assessments were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses.

resultsA total of 952 physicians completed the questionnaire, with 92% reporting awareness of tools available to calculate CHD global risk. Among those aware of such tools, over 80% agreed that CHD risk calculation is useful, improves patient care, and leads to better decisions about recommending preventive therapies. However, only 41% use CHD risk assessment in practice. The most commonly reported barrier to CHD risk assessment is that it is too time consuming. Among respondents who calculate global CHD risk, 69% indicated they use it to guide lipid lowering therapy recommendations; 54% use it to guide aspirin therapy recommendations; and 48% use it to guide BP lowering therapy. Only 40% of respondents who use global CHD risk routinely tell patients their risk. Use of a personal digital assistant or smart phone was associated with reported use of CHD risk assessment (adjusted OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.17-2.12).

conclusionsReported awareness of tools to calculate global CHD risk appears high, but the majority of physicians in this sample do not use CHD risk assessments in practice. A minority of physicians in this sample use global CHD risk to guide prescription decisions or to motivate patients. Educational interventions and system improvements to improve physicians' effective use of global CHD risk assessment should be developed and tested.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCardiologyCardiovascular AgentsCoronary DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFamily PracticeFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth SurveysHumansInternal MedicineInternetMalePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary PreventionRisk AssessmentCardiovascular Agents

Identifiers

PMID22273080
PMCPMC3292915
OpenAlexW2019052229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.