Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23101763›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2012

Mixed methods evaluation of targeted case finding for cardiovascular disease prevention using a stepped wedged cluster RCT.

Tom Marshall, Michael Caley, Karla Hemming, Paramjit Gill, Nicola Gale, Kate Jolly

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Targeted case finding in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016 · on this map
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. NHS Health Check comorbidity and management: an observational matched study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017 · on this map
    Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

6 authors.

Tom MarshallSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. T.P.Marshall@bham.ac.uk
Michael Caley
Karla Hemming
Paramjit Gill
Nicola Gale
Kate Jolly

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800808
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA pilot project cardiovascular prevention was implemented in Sandwell (West Midlands, UK). This used electronic primary care records to identify untreated patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease then invited these high risk patients for assessment by a nurse in their own general practice. Those found to be eligible for treatment were offered treatment. During the pilot a higher proportion of high risk patients were started on treatment in the intervention practices than in control practices. Following the apparent success of the prevention project, it was intended to extend the service to all practices across the Sandwell area. However the pilot project was not a robust evaluation. There was a need for an efficient evaluation that would not disrupt the planned rollout of the project. METHODS/

designProject nurses will sequentially implement targeted cardiovascular case finding in a phased way across all general practices, with the sequence of general practices determined randomly. This is a stepped wedge randomised controlled trial design. The target population is patients aged 35 to 74, without diabetes or cardiovascular disease whose ten-year cardiovascular risk, (determined from data in their electronic records) is ≥ 20%. The primary outcome is the number of high risk patients started on treatment, because these data could be efficiently obtained from electronic primary care records. From this we can determine the effects of the case finding programme on the proportion of high risk patients started on treatment in practices before and after implementation of targeted case finding. Cost-effectiveness will be modelled from the predicted effects of treatments on cardiovascular events and associated health service costs. Alongside the implementation it is intended to interview clinical staff and patients who participated in the programme in order to determine acceptability to patients and clinicians. Practical considerations meant that 26 practices in Sandwell could be randomised, including about 6,250 patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease. This gives sufficient power for evaluation. DISCUSSION: It is possible to design a stepped wedge randomised controlled trial using routine data to determine the primary outcome to evaluate implementation of a cardiovascular prevention programme.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCluster AnalysisElectronic Health RecordsFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareProgram EvaluationResearch DesignRisk AssessmentUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23101763
PMCPMC3505746

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.