Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29411690›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of preventive cardiology2018

A new selection method to increase the health benefits of CVD prevention strategies.

Ghizelda R Lagerweij, G Ardine de Wit, Karel Gm Moons, Yvonne T van der Schouw, Wm Monique Verschuren, Jannick An Dorresteijn, Hendrik Koffijberg, CREW consortium

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The cost-effectiveness of a uniform versus age-based threshold for one-off screening for prevention of cardiovascular disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ghizelda R Lagerweij1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
G Ardine de Wit1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Karel Gm Moons1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Yvonne T van der Schouw1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wm Monique Verschuren3 Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands.
Jannick An Dorresteijn4 Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hendrik Koffijberg1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
CREW consortium
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is commonly focused on providing individuals at high predicted CVD risk with preventive medication. Whereas CVD risk increases rapidly with age, current risk-based selection of individuals mainly targets the elderly. However, the lifelong (preventable) consequences of CVD events may be larger in younger individuals. The purpose of this paper is to investigate if health benefits from preventive treatment may increase when the selection strategy is further optimised. Methods Data from three Dutch cohorts were combined ( n = 47469, men:women 1:1.92) and classified into subgroups based on age and gender. The Framingham global risk score was used to estimate 10-year CVD risk. The associated lifelong burden of CVD events according to this 10-year CVD risk was expressed as quality-adjusted life years lost. Based on this approach, the additional health benefits from preventive treatment, reducing this 10-year CVD risk, from selecting individuals based on their expected CVD burden rather than their expected CVD risk were estimated. These benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years gained over lifetime. Results When using the current selection strategy (10% risk threshold), 32% of the individuals were selected for preventive treatment. When the same proportion was selected based on burden, more younger and fewer older individuals would receive treatment. Across all individuals, the gain in quality-adjusted life years was 217 between the two strategies, over a 10-year time horizon. In addition, when combining the strategies 5% extra eligible individuals were selected resulting in a gain of 628 quality-adjusted life years. Conclusion Improvement of the selection approach of individuals can help to reduce further the CVD burden. Selecting individuals for preventive treatment based on their expected CVD burden will provide more younger and fewer older individuals with treatment, and will reduce the overall CVD burden.

Indexed as

Public HealthQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrimary PreventionRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsburden of diseaseCardiovascular diseasepreventionpublic healthrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID29411690
PMCPMC5946653
OpenAlexW2787108676

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.