Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22719232›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2012

Analysing recent socioeconomic trends in coronary heart disease mortality in England, 2000-2007: a population modelling study.

Madhavi Bajekal, Shaun Scholes, Hande Love, Nathaniel Hawkins, Martin O'Flaherty, Rosalind Raine, Simon Capewell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. A Modeling Study for Hip Fracture Rates in Romania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Madhavi BajekalDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom. m.bajekal@ucl.ac.uk
Shaun Scholes
Hande Love
Nathaniel Hawkins
Martin O'Flaherty
Rosalind Raine
Simon Capewell

Funding

Medical Research Council G0500920Medical Research Council G0900847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in England fell by approximately 6% every year between 2000 and 2007. However, rates fell differentially between social groups with inequalities actually widening. We sought to describe the extent to which this reduction in CHD mortality was attributable to changes in either levels of risk factors or treatment uptake, both across and within socioeconomic groups. METHODS AND

findingsA widely used and replicated epidemiological model was used to synthesise estimates stratified by age, gender, and area deprivation quintiles for the English population aged 25 and older between 2000 and 2007. Mortality rates fell, with approximately 38,000 fewer CHD deaths in 2007. The model explained about 86% (95% uncertainty interval: 65%-107%) of this mortality fall. Decreases in major cardiovascular risk factors contributed approximately 34% (21%-47%) to the overall decline in CHD mortality: ranging from about 44% (31%-61%) in the most deprived to 29% (16%-42%) in the most affluent quintile. The biggest contribution came from a substantial fall in systolic blood pressure in the population not on hypertension medication (29%; 18%-40%); more so in deprived (37%) than in affluent (25%) areas. Other risk factor contributions were relatively modest across all social groups: total cholesterol (6%), smoking (3%), and physical activity (2%). Furthermore, these benefits were partly negated by mortality increases attributable to rises in body mass index and diabetes (-9%; -17% to -3%), particularly in more deprived quintiles. Treatments accounted for approximately 52% (40%-70%) of the mortality decline, equitably distributed across all social groups. Lipid reduction (14%), chronic angina treatment (13%), and secondary prevention (11%) made the largest medical contributions.

conclusionsThe model suggests that approximately half the recent CHD mortality fall in England was attributable to improved treatment uptake. This benefit occurred evenly across all social groups. However, opposing trends in major risk factors meant that their net contribution amounted to just over a third of the CHD deaths averted; these also varied substantially by socioeconomic group. Powerful and equitable evidence-based population-wide policy interventions exist; these should now be urgently implemented to effectively tackle persistent inequalities.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAdultCoronary DiseaseEnglandFemaleHumansMalePopulation DynamicsPrevalenceRisk FactorsSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID22719232
PMCPMC3373639

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.