Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27534979›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2016

Cardiovascular risk assessment and treatment in chronic inflammatory disorders in primary care.

G Emanuel, J Charlton, M Ashworth, M C Gulliford, A Dregan

Open access · hybridFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

G EmanuelDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, King's College London, London, UK.
J CharltonDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, King's College London, London, UK.
M AshworthDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, King's College London, London, UK.
M C GullifordDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, King's College London, London, UK.
A DreganDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and the ICR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare differences in cardiovascular (CV) risk factors assessment and management among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with that of matched controls.

methodsA matched cohort study was conducted using primary care electronic health records for one London borough. All patients diagnosed with RA or IBD, and matched controls registered with local general practices on 12th of January 2014 were identified. The study compared assessment and treatment of CV risk factors (blood pressure, body mass index, cholesterol and smoking) in the year before, the year after, and 5 years after RA and IBD diagnosis.

resultsA total of 1121 patients with RA and 1875 patients with IBD were identified and matched with 4282 and, respectively, 7803 controls. Patients with RA were 25% (incidence rate ratio, 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35) more likely to have a CV risk factor measured compared with matched controls. The difference declined to 8% (1.08, 1.04 to 1.14) over 5 years of follow-up. The corresponding figures for IBD were 26% (1.26, 1.16 to 1.38) and 10% (1.10, 1.05 to 1.15). Patients with RA showed higher antihypertensive prescription rates during 5 years of follow-up (OR, 1.37, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.65) and patients with IBD showed higher statin prescription rates in the year preceding diagnosis (2.30, 1.20 to 4.42). Incomplete CV risk assessment meant that QRISK scores could be calculated for less than a fifth (17%) and clinical recording of CV disease (CVD) risk scores among patients with RA and IBD was 11% and 6%, respectively.

conclusionsThe assessment and treatment of vascular risk in patients with RA and IBD in primary care is suboptimal, particularly with reference to CVD risk score calculation.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidBiomarkersBlood PressureBody Mass IndexCardiovascular DiseasesCase-Control StudiesCholesterolChronic DiseaseDyslipidemiasElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersCholesterolHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID27534979
PMCPMC5256394
OpenAlexW2515112938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.