Trial reportPreventive medicine2016
Predictors of cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in community health centers.
Trial report in Preventive medicine, 2016. The graph read 2 numbers from its abstract, feeding 2 cells of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. It also reports 2 associations that do not count as treatment evidence, such as OR 3.98 (3.30 to 4.81) for lipids. It is linked to trial NCT01610609 (Center for Advancing Equity in Clinical Preventive Services Project 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against
Antihypertensive medication use was independently associated with both cholesterol treatment discussion (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.35-5.75) and statin prescription (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.30-4.81).
Antihypertensive medication use was independently associated with both cholesterol treatment discussion (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.35-5.75) and statin prescription (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.30-4.81).
clause the extractor read what became the number
Where it lands on the map
Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.
What it adds to each cell
For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.
Antihypertensives×lipids
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →2 readable studies in this cell: 2 favour the treatment, 0 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.
This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.
Statins×lipids
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →38 readable studies in this cell: 27 favour the treatment, 5 find no difference, 6 favour the comparator.
This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.
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.
Center for Advancing Equity in Clinical Preventive Services Project 2: Reducing Disparities in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Statin Indication and Dose Intensification Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients at a Tertiary Hospital.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2024Article
- Factors predicting statin prescribing for primary prevention: a historical cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Guideline Concordance of Statin Treatment Decisions: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Effectiveness and prescription pattern of lipid-lowering therapy and its associated factors among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Malaysian primary care settings.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.
backgroundAlthough cholesterol guidelines emphasize cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to guide primary prevention, predictors of statin use in practice are unknown. We aimed to identify factors associated with a cholesterol treatment discussion and statin prescribing in a high-risk population.
methodsWe used data from a trial conducted among participants in community health centers without CVD or diabetes and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk≥10%. Cholesterol treatment discussion was assessed at 6months and statin prescription at 1year. We used logistic regressions to identify factors associated with each outcome.
resultsWe analyzed 646 participants (89% male, mean age 60±9.5years). Cholesterol treatment discussion occurred in 19% and statin prescription in 12% of participants. Ten-year CHD risk was not associated with treatment discussion (OR 1.11 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 0.91-1.33) but was associated with statin prescription (OR 1.41 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.13-1.75) in unadjusted models. After adjusting for traditional CVD risk factors that contribute to CHD risk, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was independently associated with statin prescription (OR 1.82 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.66-1.99). Antihypertensive medication use was independently associated with both cholesterol treatment discussion (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.35-5.75) and statin prescription (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.30-4.81). Other drivers of CVD risk (age, smoking, and systolic blood pressure) were not associated with statin use.
conclusionsSingle risk factor management strongly influences cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing patterns. Interventions that promote risk-based statin utilization are needed.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov.: NCT01610609.
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.