Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26503388›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

Impact of provision of cardiovascular disease risk estimates to healthcare professionals and patients: a systematic review.

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Barbora Silarova, Ewoud Schuit, Karel G M Moons, Simon J Griffin

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Can Communicating Personalised Disease Risk Promote Healthy Behaviour Change? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

5 authors.

Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-2531
Barbora SilarovaMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK.
Ewoud SchuitJulius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
Karel G M MoonsJulius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Simon J GriffinThe Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800270Medical Research Council MC_U106179474Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review whether the provision of information on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to healthcare professionals and patients impacts their decision-making, behaviour and ultimately patient health.

designA systematic review. DATA SOURCES: An electronic literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed from 01/01/2004 to 01/06/2013 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of systematic reviews on similar topics and all included papers. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: (1) Primary research published in a peer-reviewed journal; (2) inclusion of participants with no history of CVD; (3) intervention strategy consisted of provision of a CVD risk model estimate to either professionals or patients; and (4) the only difference between the intervention group and control group (or the only intervention in the case of before-after studies) was the provision of a CVD risk model estimate.

resultsAfter duplicates were removed, the initial electronic search identified 9671 papers. We screened 196 papers at title and abstract level and included 17 studies. The heterogeneity of the studies limited the analysis, but together they showed that provision of risk information to patients improved the accuracy of risk perception without decreasing quality of life or increasing anxiety, but had little effect on lifestyle. Providing risk information to physicians increased prescribing of lipid-lowering and blood pressure medication, with greatest effects in those with CVD risk >20% (relative risk for change in prescribing 2.13 (1.02 to 4.63) and 2.38 (1.11 to 5.10) respectively). Overall, there was a trend towards reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure and a statistically significant reduction in modelled CVD risk (-0.39% (-0.71 to -0.07)) after, on average, 12 months.

conclusionsThere seems evidence that providing CVD risk model estimates to professionals and patients improves perceived CVD risk and medical prescribing, with little evidence of harm on psychological well-being.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelAnxietyBlood PressureCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterolHumansPatientsPrimary PreventionPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentCholesterolCARDIOLOGYPREVENTIVE MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID26503388
PMCPMC4636662

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.