ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2015
Value of a facilitated quality improvement initiative on cardiovascular disease risk: findings from an evaluation of the Aggressively Treating Global Cardiometabolic Risk Factors to Reduce Cardiovascular Events (AT GOAL).
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2015. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesIn the United States, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contracted an evaluation of the Aggressively Treating Global Cardiometabolic Risk Factors to Reduce Cardiovascular Events (AT GOAL) programme as part of its effort to identify strategies to address CVD risk factors.
methodsThis study analysed patient-level data from 7527 patients in 43 primary care practices. The researchers assessed average change in control rates for CVD-related measures across practices, and then across patients between baseline and a patient's last visit during the practice's tenure in the programme (referred to as 'end line') using repeated measures analysis of variance and random effects generalized least squares, respectively.
resultsAmong non-diabetic patients, there were significant increases in control rates for overall blood pressure (74.3% to 78.0%, P = 0.0002), systolic blood pressure (70.3% to 80.6%, P = 0.0099), diastolic blood pressure (90.1% to 92.7%, P = 0.0001) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL; 48.6% to 53.1%, P = 0.0001) between baseline and end line. Among diabetic patients, there was a significant increase in diastolic blood pressure control (59.8% to 61.9%, P = 0.0141). While continuous CVD-related outcomes show an overall trend between baseline and end line, patients with uncontrolled measures at baseline showed a decrease between baseline and end line relative to their counterparts who were controlled at baseline.
conclusionsFindings from the AT GOAL evaluation support the value of a facilitated quality improvement (QI) initiative on managing CVD risk.
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.