Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27000783›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on screening for cardiovascular disease risk in a primary prevention population: a cross-sectional study.

Sarah-Jane Lang, Gary A Abel, Jonathan Mant, Ricky Mullis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Tirzepatide and the NHS: are we creating a two-tier obesity treatment system?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Sarah-Jane LangGeneral Practice & Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4342-7165
Gary A AbelCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jonathan MantGeneral Practice & Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ricky MullisGeneral Practice & Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1153
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesInvestigate the association between socioeconomic deprivation and completeness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor recording in primary care, uptake of screening in people with incomplete risk factor recording and with actual CVD risk within the screened subgroup.

designCross-sectional study.

settingNine UK general practices.

participants7987 people aged 50-74 years with no CVD diagnosis.

methodsCVD risk was estimated using the Framingham equation from data extracted from primary care electronic health records. Where there was insufficient information to calculate risk, patients were invited to attend a screening assessment. ANALYSIS: Proportion of patients for whom clinical data were sufficiently complete to enable CVD risk to be calculated; proportion of patients invited to screening who attended; proportion of patients who attended screening whose 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event was high (>20%). For each outcome, a set of logistic regression models were run. Crude and adjusted ORs were estimated for person-level deprivation, age, gender and smoking status. We included practice-level deprivation as a continuous variable and practice as a random effect to account for clustering.

resultsPeople who had lower Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores (less deprived) had significantly worse routine CVD risk factor recording (adjusted OR 0.97 (0.95 to 1.00) per IMD decile; p=0.042). Screening attendance was poorer in those with more deprivation (adjusted OR 0.89 (0.86 to 0.91) per IMD decile; p<0.001). Among those who attended screening, the most deprived were more likely to have CVD risk >20% (OR 1.09 (1.03 to 1.15) per IMD decile; p=0.004).

conclusionsOur data suggest that those who had the most to gain from screening were least likely to attend, potentially exacerbating existing health inequalities. Future research should focus on tailoring the delivery of CVD screening to ensure engagement of socioeconomically deprived groups.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesPrimary PreventionSocioeconomic FactorsAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk FactorsUnited KingdomPREVENTIVE MEDICINEPRIMARY CAREPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID27000783
PMCPMC4809080

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.