ArticleScientific reports2017
Assessing Screening Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors using Routinely Collected Data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretable Machine Learning Techniques in ECG-Based Heart Disease Classification: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates if laboratory data can be used to assess whether physician-retesting patterns are in line with established guidelines, and if these guidelines identify deteriorating patients in a timely manner. A total of 7594 patients with high cholesterol were studied, along with 2764 patients with diabetes. More than 90% of borderline high cholesterol patients are retested within the 3 year recommended period, however less than 75% of pre-diabetic patients have repeated tests within the suggested 1-year time frame. Patients with borderline high cholesterol typically progress to full high cholesterol in 2-3 years, and pre-diabetic patients progress to full diabetes in 1-2 years. Data from routinely ordered laboratory tests can be used to monitor adherence to clinical guidelines. These data may also be useful in the design of adaptive testing strategies that reduce unnecessary testing, while ensuring that patient deterioration is identified in a timely manner. Established guidelines for testing of total serum cholesterol for hypercholesterolemia are appropriate and are well-adhered to, whereas guidelines for glycated hemoglobin A1c testing for type 2 diabetes mellitus could be improved to bring them in line with current practice and avoid unnecessary testing.
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.