ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2015
Comparison of Cardiovascular Risk Screening Methods and Mortality Data among Hungarian Primary Care Population: Preliminary Results of the First Government-Financed Managed Care Program.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in IraPEN program: A modeling study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBesides participation in the primary prevention, screening as secondary prevention is an important requirement for primary care services. The effect of this work is influenced by the characteristics of individual primary care practices and doctors' screening habits, as well as by the regulation of screening processes and available financial resources. Between 1999 and 2009, a managed care program was introduced and carried out in Hungary, financed by the government. This financial support and motivation gave the opportunity to increase the number of screenings.
method4,462 patients of 40 primary care practices were screened on the basis of SCORE risk assessment. The results of the screening were compared on the basis of two groups of patients, namely: those who had been pre-screened (pre-screening method) for known risk factors in their medical history (smoking, BMI, age, family cardiovascular history), and those randomly screened. The authors also compared the mortality data of participating primary care practices with the regional and national data.
resultsThe average score was significantly higher in the pre-screened group of patients, regardless of whether the risk factors were considered one by one or in combination. Mortality was significantly lower in the participating primary practices than had been expected on the basis of the national mortality data.
conclusionThis government-financed program was a big step forward to establish a proper screening method within Hungarian primary care. Performing cardiovascular screening of a selected target group is presumably more appropriate than screening within a randomly selected population. Both methods resulted in a visible improvement in regional mortality data, though it is very likely that with pre-screening a more cost-effective selection for screening may be obtained.
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.