ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2017
Management of Dyslipidemias in Europe and the USA: Same Evidence, Different Conclusions? Can We Find Common Ground?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewAn examination of the current ACC/AHA and ESC/EAS Guidelines on the management of dyslipidemias for common ground and differences. RECENT
findingsThere is much common ground. Both note that ASCVD is, in most people, the product of a number of risk factors, notably tobacco exposure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, inactivity, overweight and diabetes. They stress that risk calculators can help in the assessment of risk in apparently healthy persons. Persons with established ASCVD and many with diabetes or renal impairment are at high to very high risk and warrant intensive risk factor advice. The ACC/AHA Guidelines favor the universal use of statins in all high-risk subjects. In contrast, the ESC/EAS Guidelines favor a goal approach based on total risk and baseline LDL cholesterol level. Perhaps the most important challenges are to stress similarities rather than differences and to simplify communications with both healthcare professionals and the public. Subjects with established vascular disease and renal impairment and many with diabetes are at high to very high risk and need intensive risk factor management. A risk chart or calculator is recommended to assess total risk in apparently healthy persons. The higher the risk, the more intense the risk factor management.
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.