ArticleClinical cardiology2013
Clinical utility of a novel coronary heart disease risk-assessment test to further classify intermediate-risk patients.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care: results of a "best-fit" framework synthesis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessments inadequately assess intermediate-risk patients, leaving many undertreated and vulnerable to heart attacks. A novel CHD risk-assessment (CHDRA) tool was developed for intermediate-risk stratification using biomarkers and established risk factors to significantly improve CHD risk discrimination. HYPOTHESIS: Physicians will change their treatment plan in response to more information about a patient's CHD risk level provided by the CHDRA test.
methodsA Web-based survey of cardiology, internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics/gynecology physicians (n = 206) was conducted to assess the CHDRA clinical impact. Each physician was shown 3 clinical vignettes representing community-based cohort participants randomly selected from 8 total vignettes. For each, the physicians assessed the individual's CHD risk and selected preferred therapies based on the individual's comorbidities, physical examination, and laboratory results. The individual's CHDRA score was then provided and the physicians were queried for changes to their initial treatment plans.
resultsAfter obtaining the CHDRA result, 70% of the physician responses indicated a change to the patient's treatment plan. The revised lipid-management plans agreed more often (74.6% of the time) with the current Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines than did the original plans (57.6% of the time). Most physicians (71.3%) agreed with the statement that the CHDRA result provided information that would impact their current treatment decisions.
conclusionsThe CHDRA test provided additional information to which physicians responded by more often applying appropriate therapy and actions aligned with guidelines, thus demonstrating the clinical utility of the test.
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.