Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29171772›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of preventive cardiology2018

Assessing gaps in cholesterol treatment guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based on available randomised clinical trial evidence: The Rotterdam Study.

Jelena Pavlović, Philip Greenland, Jaap W Deckers, Maryam Kavousi, Albert Hofman, M Arfan Ikram, Oscar H Franco, Maarten Jg Leening

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of preventive cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jelena Pavlović1 Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Philip Greenland2 Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, USA.
Jaap W Deckers3 Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Maryam Kavousi1 Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Albert Hofman1 Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
M Arfan Ikram1 Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Oscar H Franco1 Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Maarten Jg Leening1 Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLHarvard University · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study was to determine how American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2013 and European Society of Cardiology 2016 guidelines for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) compare in reflecting the totality of accrued randomised clinical trial evidence for statin treatment at population level. Methods From 1997-2008, 7279 participants aged 45-75 years, free of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, from the population-based Rotterdam Study were included. For each participant, we compared eligibility for each one of 11 randomised clinical trials on statin use in primary prevention of CVD, with recommendations on lipid-lowering therapy from the ACC/AHA and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease incidence and cardiovascular disease mortality rates were calculated. Results The proportion of participants eligible for each trial ranged from 0.4% for ALLHAT-LLT to 30.8% for MEGA. The likelihood of being recommended for lipid-lowering treatment was lowest for those eligible for low-to-intermediate risk RCTs (HOPE-3, MEGA, and JUPITER), and highest for high-risk individuals with diabetes (MRC/BHF HPS, CARDS, and ASPEN) or elderly PROSPER. Eligibility for an increasing number of randomised clinical trials correlated with a greater likelihood of being recommended lipid-lowering treatment by either guideline ( p < 0.001 for both guidelines). Conclusion Compared to RCTs done in high risk populations, randomised clinical trials targeting low-to-intermediate risk populations are less well-reflected in the ACC/AHA, and even less so in the ESC guideline recommendations. Importantly, the low-to-intermediate risk population targeted by HOPE-3, the most recent randomised clinical trial in this field, is not well-captured by the current European prevention guidelines and should be specifically considered in future iterations of the guidelines.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAgedAmerican Heart AssociationCardiologyCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterolFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCholesterolHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsCardiovascular diseaseclinical practice guidelinesepidemiologyprimary preventionrandomised clinical trialstatin

Identifiers

PMID29171772
PMCPMC5818030
OpenAlexW2770339861

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
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.