Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26769594›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

Is statin-modified reduction in lipids the most important preventive therapy for cardiovascular disease? A pro/con debate.

F D Richard Hobbs, Maciej Banach, Dimitri P Mikhailidis, Aseem Malhotra, Simon Capewell

Open access · goldFull text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.3field-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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. High-Intensity Statin Use Among Patients With Atherosclerosis in the U.S.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  11. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Management of Statin Intolerance in 2018: Still More Questions Than Answers.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK. richard.hobbs@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Maciej BanachDepartment of Hypertension, Chair of Nephrology and Hypertension, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland. maciejbanach@aol.co.uk.
Dimitri P MikhailidisDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Free Hospital Campus, University College London Medical School, University College London, London, UK. mikhailidis@aol.com.
Aseem MalhotraFrimley Park Hospital, Surrey, UK. aseem_malhotra@hotmail.com.
Simon CapewellDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. capewell@liverpool.ac.uk.
Frimley Park Hospital · GBMedical University of Lodz · PLNuffield Health · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0900847Medical Research Council MC_PC_11004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most prescribed medications in the world are statins, lipid modifiers that have been available for over 25 years and amongst the most investigated of all drug classes. With over a million patient years of trial data and publications in the most prestigious medical journals, it is remarkable that quite so much debate remains as to their place in healthcare. They have had a bittersweet passage, with vocal concerns over their possible risks, from suicide to cancer, and allegations that they do not work in women or the elderly, to statements that the whole published dataset, on over 200,000 patients consenting to enter trials, was fatally compromised by being industry-funded by and large. On the other side, there have been billions of dollars spent on generating their evidence base followed by promotion which has returned that investment many times over in profits, and a powerful scientific lobby that argue they are wonder drugs and that continued nihilism on their value risks patient lives. So who is right?

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular DiseasesClinical Trials as TopicDown-RegulationDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsLipid MetabolismLipidsMaleNeoplasmsSuicide, AttemptedHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsLipids

Identifiers

PMID26769594
PMCPMC4714436
OpenAlexW2238207260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.