ArticleThe open cardiovascular medicine journal2015
Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Effects on Behavior in Switzerland The Swiss Heart Foundation HerzCheck(®)/Cardio-Test(®).
Article in The open cardiovascular medicine journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Exploration of a co-care service for chronic care management in patients with hypertension: A participatory qualitative study (Phase 1).Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background"CardioTest (®) " is a tool for cardiovascular risk assessment. The aim of this study was to evaluate if this test used in Swiss pharmacies provides risk stratification and if it had impact on individual behaviour.
methodsIndividuals were evaluated (blood pressure, body waist circumference, random blood samples and coronary artery disease risk factors). The cardiovascular risk was calculated (AGLA Risk Score (ARS) a modified PROCAM Score) and participants were informed about their result. One year after the initial testing individuals were followed up by questionnaire with respect to the action they had taken based upon the ARS results. The relation between ARS results and events during follow-up were assessed. Events were defined as cardiovascular events due to chest pain, myocardial infarction or stroke.
resultA total of 1415 individuals were contacted for follow-up, 746 (53%) with a mean age of 62.7 (±12.8) years (60% were male) returned their questionnaire. The cardiovascular risk throughout the study-population turned out to be low: 73.9% had a low ARS <10%, 21.7% an intermediate ARS 10-20% and 4.4% had a high ARS >20%. Significantly more participants with ARS >20% consulted their family doctor (46.2%) than those with ARS 10-20% (25.2%) and ARS <10% (10.4%), respectively (p<0,01 for both comparisons). Sixty-four individuals (9%) suffered a cardiovascular event. The event rates increased as a function of ARS.
conclusionThe overall cardiovascular risk of individuals participating in a pharmacy based risk assessment program seems to be low. CardioTest (®) provided risk stratification with respect to future cardio-vascular events. CardioTest (®) seems to have impact on individual behavior and lifestyle modification. Other settings and locations for screening might be considered to reach higher risk individuals at an earlier stage.
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.