Trial reportBMC family practice2012
Randomized controlled trial on cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses supported by self-monitoring in primary care.
Trial report in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Pooled it
- Task shifting of cardiovascular risk assessment and communication by nurses for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in a tertiary health care setting of Northern India.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- [Effect of a Physical activity program on self-esteem in subjects with chronic diseases. 'Pas a Pas' community intervention trial].Atencion primaria · 2019Trial
- Physical activity, cardiovascular health, quality of life and blood pressure control in hypertensive subjects: randomized clinical trial.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2018Trial
- Effectiveness of a physical activity program on cardiovascular disease risk in adult primary health-care users: the "Pas-a-Pas" community intervention trial.BMC public health · 2017Trial
- 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
- Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses in primary care.BMC public health · 2013Trial
- Promoting nurse-led behaviour change interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease in disadvantaged communities: A scoping review.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
- Physical Activity and Risks of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Drug adherence in patients taking oral anticoagulation therapy.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2014Review
- Strategies for achieving whole-practice engagement and buy-in to the patient-centered medical home.Annals of family medicineArticle
- Self Managing Heart Failure in Remote Australia - Translating Concepts into Clinical Practice.Current cardiology reviewsReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelled
backgroundTreatment goals for cardiovascular risk management are generally not achieved. Specialized practice nurses are increasingly facilitating the work of general practitioners and self-monitoring devices have been developed as counseling aid. The aim of this study was to compare standard treatment supported by self-monitoring with standard treatment without self-monitoring, both conducted by practice nurses, on cardiovascular risk and separate risk factors.
methodsMen aged 50-75 years and women aged 55-75 years without a history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes, but with a SCORE 10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality ≥ 5% and at least one treatable risk factor (smoking, hypertension, lack of physical activity or overweight), were randomized into two groups. The control group received standard treatment according to guidelines, the intervention group additionally received pro-active counseling and self-monitoring (pedometer, weighing scale and/ or blood pressure device). After one year treatment effect on 179 participants was analyzed.
resultsSCORE risk assessment decreased 1.6% (95% CI 1.0-2.2) for the control group and 1.8% (1.2-2.4) for the intervention group, difference between groups was .2% (-.6-1.1). Most risk factors tended to improve in both groups. The number of visits was higher and visits took more time in the intervention group (4.9 (SD2.2) vs. 2.6 (SD1.5) visits p< .001 and 27 (P25 -P75:20-33) vs. 23 (P25 -P75:19-30) minutes/visit p= .048).
conclusionsIn both groups cardiovascular risk decreased significantly after one year of treatment by practice nurses. No additional effect of basing the pro-active counseling on self-monitoring was found, despite the extra time investment.
trial registrationtrialregister.nl NTR2188.
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.