ArticleClinical rheumatology2014
The role of rheumatologists vis-à-vis assessment of traditional cardiovascular risk factors in rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to estimate the burden of care that would be placed on rheumatologists to undertake cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment of traditional CV risk factors in their patients. This cross-sectional study was set in a rheumatology ambulatory clinic of a tertiary care, university hospital. Consecutive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients were recruited over 6 weeks and matched 1:1 on age and sex to patients with non-inflammatory problems who presented to the same clinic. CV risk was calculated using the Framingham Risk Score. We recruited 68 RA patients and 64 controls. The distribution of CV risk factors in RA patients and controls was similar. Ten-year Framingham CV risk scores based on traditional risk factors were moderate and similar in RA patients and controls (13.7 and 14.3%, respectively). Nevertheless, the proportion of RA patients with a history of coronary artery disease was more than twice that of controls (13 versus 5%, respectively). Approximately 20% of RA patients and controls did not have a primary care physician. In rheumatology practice, the problem of elevated CV risk due to traditional risk factors is not unique to RA patients. The burden for rheumatologists of undertaking CV risk assessment in their clinic could be considerable. Rheumatologists should manage inflammatory disease and health services should be improved to ensure the optimal management of traditional CV risk factors for all rheumatology patients.
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.