ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2012
Assessment of cardiovascular risk in primary health care.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost consequences of point-of-care troponin T testing in a Swedish primary health care setting.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2014Trial
- Which patient and treatment factors are related to successful cardiovascular risk score reduction in general practice? Results from a randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2013Trial
- High LDL cholesterol and statin use were independently associated with lower eight-year mortality in a cohort free from terminal illness, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes at baseline.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2014Article
- Retrospective evaluation of adverse drug reactions induced by antihypertensive treatment.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics · 2013Article
- Presenting the improved possibility for staying well might be better than talking about change in risk: use of the non-occurrence probability increase (NOPI).Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2013Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed at investigating whether cardiovascular risk factors and their impact on total risk estimation differ between men and women.
designCross-sectional cohort study. SUBJECTS: Finnish cardiovascular risk subjects (n = 904) without established cardiovascular disease, renal disease, or known diabetes.
main outcome measuresAnkle-brachial index (ABI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), oral glucose tolerance test, and total cardiovascular risk using SCORE risk charts.
resultsAccording to the SCORE risk charts, 27.0% (95% CI 23.1-31.2) of the women and 63.1% (95% CI 58.3-67.7) of the men (p < 0.001) were classified as high-risk subjects. Of the women classified as low-risk subjects according to SCORE, 25% had either subclinical peripheral arterial disease or renal insufficiency.
conclusionsThe SCORE system does not take into account cardiovascular risk factors typical in women, and thus underestimates their total cardiovascular risk. Measurement of ABI and eGFR in primary care might improve cardiovascular risk assessment. especially in women.
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.