Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27660458›Full record

ReviewVascular health and risk management

Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives.

Vicente Giner-Galvañ, María José Esteban-Giner, Vicente Pallarés-Carratalá

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vascular health and risk management. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Skeletal Muscle and Cardiovascular Health.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Therapeutics in Metabolic Diseases.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Current guidelines on prevention with a focus on dyslipidemias.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017
    Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vicente Giner-GalvañDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Unit of Hypertension and Cardiometabolic Risk, Hospital Mare de Déu dels Lliris, Alcoy, Alicante.
María José Esteban-GinerDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Unit of Hypertension and Cardiometabolic Risk, Hospital Mare de Déu dels Lliris, Alcoy, Alicante.
Vicente Pallarés-CarrataláDepartment of Health Surveillance, Unión de Mutuas, Castellón de la Plana; Department of Medicine, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern medicine is characterized by a continuous genesis of evidence making it very difficult to translate the latest findings into a better clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) emerge to provide clinicians evidence-based recommendations for their daily clinical practice. However, the high number of existing CPG as well as the usual differences in the given recommendations usually increases the clinician's confusion and doubts. It has apparently been the case for the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol. These CPG proposed new and controversial concepts that have usually been considered an antagonist shift respective to European CPG. The most controversial published proposals are: 1) to consider evidence just from randomized clinical trials, 2) creation of a new cardiovascular (CV) risk calculator, 3) to consider reducing CV risk instead of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) as the target of the treatment, and 4) consideration of statins as the only drugs for treatment. A deep analysis of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association CPG and comparison with the European ones show that from a practical and clinical point of view, there are more similarities than differences. To further help clinicians in their daily work, in the present globalized world, it is time to discuss and adopt a mutually agreed upon document created by both sides of the Atlantic. Probably it is not a short-term solution. Meanwhile, taking advantage of the similarities, the recommended practical attitude for the daily clinical practice should be based on 1) early detection of people with increased CV risk promoting the use of validated local scales, 2) reinforce the mainstream importance of nonpharmacological treatment, and 3) need for periodically monitoring response with analytical parameters (LDL or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and global CV risk estimation. Technological solutions such as the big data technology could help to obtain high-quality evidence in an intermediate term.

Indexed as

cardiovascular riskclinical practice guidelinesdyslipidemiastatins

Identifiers

PMID27660458
PMCPMC5019442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.