Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26289559›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2015

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines recommendations about primary cardiovascular disease prevention for older adults.

Jesse Jansen, Shannon McKinn, Carissa Bonner, Les Irwig, Jenny Doust, Paul Glasziou, Brooke Nickel, Barbara van Munster, Kirsten McCaffery

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
17.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Application of the 2014 NICE cholesterol guidelines in the English population: a cross-sectional analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jesse JansenScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. jesse.jansen@sydney.edu.au.
Shannon McKinnScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. shannon.mckinn@sydney.edu.au.
Carissa BonnerScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. carissa.bonner@sydney.edu.au.
Les IrwigScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. les.irwig@sydney.edu.au.
Jenny DoustScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. jdoust@bond.edu.au.
Paul GlasziouScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. pglaszio@bond.edu.au.
Brooke NickelScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. brooke.nickel@sydney.edu.au.
Barbara van MunsterAcademic Medical Centre, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands. b.c.vanmunster@amc.uva.nl.
Kirsten McCafferyScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. kirsten.mccaffery@sydney.edu.au.
University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical care for older adults is complex and represents a growing problem. They are a diverse patient group with varying needs, frequent presence of multiple comorbidities, and are more susceptible to treatment harms. Thus Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) need to carefully consider older adults in order to guide clinicians. We reviewed CPG recommendations for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and examined the extent to which CPGs address issues important for older people identified in the literature.

methodsWe searched: 1) two systematic reviews on CPGs for CVD prevention and 2) the National CPG Clearinghouse, G-I-N International CPG Library and Trip databases for CPGs for CVD prevention, hypertension and cholesterol. We conducted our search between April and December 2013. We excluded CPGs for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, HIV, lifestyle, general screening/prevention, and pregnant or pediatric populations. Three authors independently screened citations for inclusion and extracted data. The primary outcomes were presence and extent of recommendations for older people including discussion of: (1) available evidence, (2) barriers to implementation of the CPG, and (3) tailoring management for this group.

resultsWe found 47 eligible CPGs. There was no mention of older people in 4 (9 %) of the CPGs. Benefits were discussed more frequently than harms. Twenty-three CPGs (49 %) discussed evidence about potential benefits and 18 (38 %) discussed potential harms of CVD prevention in older people. Most CPGs addressed one or more barriers to implementation, often as a short statement. Although 27 CPGs (58 %) mentioned tailoring management to the older patient context (e.g. comorbidities), concrete guidance was rare.

conclusionAlthough most CVD prevention CPGs mention the older population to some extent, the information provided is vague and very limited. Older adults represent a growing proportion of the population. Guideline developers must ensure they consider older patients' needs and provide appropriate advice to clinicians in order to support high quality care for this group. CPGs should at a minimum address the available evidence about CVD prevention for older people, and acknowledge the importance of patient involvement.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAgedCardiovascular DiseasesHumansPrimary Prevention

Identifiers

PMID26289559
PMCPMC4546022
OpenAlexW2098592947

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.