Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26876722›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

Implementation of a telephone-based secondary preventive intervention after acute coronary syndrome (ACS): participation rate, reasons for non-participation and 1-year survival.

Daniel Huber, Robin Henriksson, Stina Jakobsson, Nikolai Stenfors, Thomas Mooe

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Daniel HuberDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Centre of Medicine Östersund, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. daniel.huber@regionjh.se.
Robin HenrikssonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Centre of Medicine Östersund, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. rohe0026@student.umu.se.
Stina JakobssonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Centre of Medicine Östersund, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. stina.jakobsson@umu.se.
Nikolai StenforsDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Centre of Medicine Östersund, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. nikolai.stenfors@umu.se.
Thomas MooeDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Centre of Medicine Östersund, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. thomas.mooe@umu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a major cause of death from a non-communicable disease. Secondary prevention is effective for reducing morbidity and mortality, but evidence-based targets are seldom reached and new interventional methods are needed. The present study is a feasibility study of a telephone-based secondary preventive programme in an unselected ACS cohort.

methodsThe NAILED (Nurse-based Age-independent Intervention to Limit Evolution of Disease) ACS trial is a prospective randomized controlled trial. All eligible patients admitted for ACS were randomized to usual follow-up by a general practitioner or telephone follow-up by study nurses. The intervention was made by continuous telephone contact, with counseling on healthy living and titration of medicines to reach target values for blood pressure and blood lipids. Exclusion criteria were limited to physical inability to follow the study design or participation in another study.

resultsA total of 907 patients were assessed for inclusion. Of these, 661 (72.9%) were included and randomized, 100 (11%) declined participation, and 146 (16.1%) were excluded. The main reasons for exclusion were participation in another trial, dementia, and advanced disease. "Excluded" and "declining" patients were significantly older with more co-morbidity, decreased functional status, and had more seldom received education above compulsory school level than "included" patients. Non-participants had a higher 1-year mortality than participants.

conclusionsNurse-led telephone-based follow-up after ACS can be applied to a large proportion in an unselected clinical setting. Reasons for non-participation, which were associated with increased mortality, include older age, multiple co-morbidities, decreased functional status and low level of education.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN96595458 (archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6RlyhYTYK). Application date: 10 July 2011.

Indexed as

TelephoneAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesPatient ParticipationProspective StudiesSecondary Prevention

Identifiers

PMID26876722
PMCPMC4753651

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.