ArticleBMC family practice2016
Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making.
Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis.BMC geriatrics · 2018Pooled it
- International Atherosclerosis Society guidance for implementing best practice in the care of familial hypercholesterolaemia.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2023Review
- Heterogeneity in the Association Between the Presence of Coronary Artery Calcium and Cardiovascular Events: A Machine-Learning Approach in the MESA Study.Circulation · 2023Article
- Article
- Expansion and Evaluation of Pharmacist Services in Primary Care.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Familial hypercholesterolaemia: evolving knowledge for designing adaptive models of care.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2020Review
- Opportunities for addressing gaps in primary care shared decision-making with technology: a mixed-methods needs assessment.JAMIA open · 2019Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Heterogeneity in Adults with Diabetes: Selective Use of Coronary Artery Calcium in Statin Use Decision-making.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Review
- The Shared Decision Making of Older Adults in Healthcare.Working with older people (Brighton, England) · 2019Article
- Net benefit of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people 75 years or older: a benefit-harm balance modeling study.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2019Article
- Nonadherence to statins: individualized intervention strategies outside the pill box.Vascular health and risk management · 2018Review
- Article
- Factors Affecting Health Care Engagement of Patients With End-Stage Heart Failure: An Exploratory Survey Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe practice of clinical medicine rests on a foundation of ethical principles as well as scientific knowledge. Clinicians must artfully balance the principle of beneficence, doing what is best for patients, with autonomy, allowing patients to make their own well-informed health care decisions. The clinical communication process is complicated by varying degrees of confidence in scientific evidence regarding patient-oriented benefits, and by the fact that most medical options are associated with possible harms as well as potential benefits. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based clinical guidelines often neglect patient-oriented issues involved with the thoughtful practice of shared decision-making, where individual values, goals, and preferences should be prioritized. Guidelines on the use of statin medications for preventing cardiovascular events are a case in point. Current guidelines endorse the use of statins for people whose 10-year risk of cardiovascular events is as low as 7.5%. Previous guidelines set the 10-year risk benchmark at 20%. Meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that statins can reduce cardiovascular event rates by about 25%, bringing 10-year risk from 7.5 to 5.6%, for example, or from 20 to 15%. Whether or not these benefits should justify the use of statins for individual patients depends on how those advantages are valued in comparison with disadvantages, such as side effect risks, and with inconveniences associated with taking a pill each day and visiting clinicians and laboratories regularly.
conclusionsWhether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile. Researchers and professional organizations should endeavor to develop shared decision-making tools that provide up-to-date best evidence in easily understandable formats, so as to assist clinicians in helping their patients to make the decisions that are right for them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.