Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26567234›Full record

SynthesisHeart (British Cardiac Society)2016

Effective components of nurse-coordinated care to prevent recurrent coronary events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marjolein Snaterse, Jos Dobber, Patricia Jepma, Ron J G Peters, Gerben Ter Riet, S Matthijs Boekholdt, Bianca M Buurman, Wilma J M Scholte op Reimer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Lifestyle management to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: evidence and challenges.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

8 authors.

Marjolein SnaterseAmsterdam School of Health Professions, University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jos DobberAmsterdam School of Health Professions, University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Patricia JepmaAmsterdam School of Health Professions, University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ron J G PetersDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerben Ter RietDepartment of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S Matthijs BoekholdtDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bianca M BuurmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wilma J M Scholte op ReimerAmsterdam School of Health Professions, University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current guidelines on secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease recommend nurse-coordinated care (NCC) as an effective intervention. However, NCC programmes differ widely and the efficacy of NCC components has not been studied. To investigate the efficacy of NCC and its components in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 18 randomised trials (11 195 patients in total) using 15 components of NCC met the predefined inclusion criteria. These components were placed into three main intervention strategies: (1) risk factor management (13 studies); (2) multidisciplinary consultation (11 studies) and (3) shared decision making (10 studies). Six trials combined NCC components from all three strategies. In total, 30 outcomes were observed. We summarised observed outcomes in four outcome categories: (1) risk factor levels (16 studies); (2) clinical events (7 studies); (3) patient-perceived health (7 studies) and (4) guideline adherence (3 studies). Compared with usual care, NCC lowered systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference (WMD) 2.96 mm Hg; 95% CI 1.53 to 4.40 mm Hg) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (WMD 0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36 mmol/L). NCC also improved smoking cessation rates by 25% (risk ratio 1.25; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.43). NCC demonstrated to have an effect on a small number of outcomes. NCC that incorporated blood pressure monitoring, cholesterol control and smoking cessation has an impact on the improvement of secondary prevention. Additionally, NCC is a heterogeneous concept. A shared definition of NCC may facilitate better comparisons of NCC content and outcomes.

Indexed as

Nurse's RoleCoronary DiseaseGuideline AdherenceHumansLife StylePatient Care TeamPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsRisk Reduction BehaviorSecondary PreventionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26567234
PMCPMC4717438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.