ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
How to best assess quality of drug treatment in patients with heart failure.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patterns of Evidence-Based Medication Use in Older Adults with Chronic Heart Failure in Slovakia: A Population-Based Study Using the National Health Information Center Database.Drugs & aging · 2026Article
- Article
- Effectiveness by gender and age of renin-angiotensin system blockade in heart failure-A national register-based cohort study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe proportion of patients with heart failure (HF) treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is frequently used as quality indicator. This study aimed to compare agreement between different methods of calculating this quality indicator. In addition, characteristics for patients and care providers associated with a high proportion treated with ACEI or ARB were analyzed.
methodsThis Swedish cross-sectional register-based study was conducted in the Stockholm region (2.1 million inhabitants). The proportion of patients with HF treated with ACEI or ARB was calculated by different methods applied on an administrative database on healthcare consumption, diagnoses, and dispensed drugs and by self-reported data from all primary care centers in the region.
resultsA total of 32,677 patients recorded with a HF diagnosis 2008-2012 and alive July-December 2012 were identified. The proportion treated with ACEI or ARB varied depending on observation period and care provider included (range register 52-74 %). There was a large variation between different primary care centers (range register 36-88 %, range self-reported 8-100 %) and a poor agreement between methods (Bland-Altman; rhoc range 0.07-0.23). Predictors for high proportion treated were low age, high socioeconomic status, cardiovascular comorbidity, and diagnosis recorded both in primary care and in hospitals.
conclusionsThere is poor agreement between different methods to evaluate adherence to guidelines for drug treatment in HF. Differences between practices concerning patient age, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and care given by different providers should be taken into account in quality assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27066957What 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.