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.
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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2014 · on this mapGuideline
- Guideline
- Effect of a Comprehensive Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Intervention in Persons With Serious Mental Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2020Trial
- From hypertension control to global cardiovascular risk management: an educational intervention in a cluster-randomised controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2015Trial
- Providing clinicians with a patient's 10-year cardiovascular risk improves their statin prescribing: a true experiment using clinical vignettes.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2013Trial
- Cathepsin K: a novel association with glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, and subclinical atherosclerosis in T2DM.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- A hybrid algorithm-based ECG risk prediction model for cardiovascular disease.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Rationale and design of a randomized controlled clinical trial of a resilience-building intervention in adults with congenital heart disease.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Identifying Predictor Variables for a Composite Risk Prediction Tool for Gestational Diabetes and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Modified Delphi Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Predicted cardiovascular disease risk and prescribing of antihypertensive therapy among patients with hypertension in Australia using MedicineInsight.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Article
- Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- SARS-COV-ATE risk assessment model for arterial thromboembolism in COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- "Patients would probably be more compliant to therapy if encouraged by those around them": a qualitative study exploring primary care physicians' perceptions on barriers to CVD risk management.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- A Bayesian Network Analysis of the Probabilistic Relationships Between Various Obesity Phenotypes and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Chinese Adults: Chinese Population-Based Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Lower-Intensity Statins Contributing to Gaps in Care for Patients With Primary Severe Hypercholesterolemia.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Barriers to Implementing Cardiovascular Risk Calculation in Primary Care: Alignment With the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Article
- GPs' familiarity with and use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules: a UK survey study.BJGP open · 2020Article
- Advance care planning and palliative care in ACHD: the healthcare providers' perspective.Cardiology in the young · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.