ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2019
Cardiovascular Health Trends in Electronic Health Record Data (2012-2015): A Cross-Sectional Analysis of The Guideline Advantage™.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Toward One Health: a spatial indicator system to model the facilitation of the spread of zoonotic diseases.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Cardiovascular Disease Incidence and Cardiovascular Health Among Diverse Women With Breast and Gynecologic Cancers.Oncology nursing forum · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Care Innovation through Data-Driven Discoveries in the Electronic Health Record.The American journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- Women and ethnoracial minorities with poor cardiovascular health measures associated with a higher risk of developing mood disorder.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health record (EHR) data can measure cardiovascular health (CVH) of patient populations, but have limited generalizability when derived from one health care system.
objectiveWe used The Guideline Advantage™ (TGA) data repository, comprising EHR data of patients from 8 diverse health care systems, to describe CVH of adult patients and progress towards the American Heart Association's (AHA's) 2020 Impact Goals.
methodsOur analysis included 203,488 patients with 677,733 encounters recorded in TGA from 2012 to 2015. Five measures from EHRs [cigarette smoking status, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP), cholesterol, and diabetes mellitus (DM)] were categorized as poor/intermediate/ideal according to AHA's Life's Simple 7 algorithm. We presented distributions and trends of CVH for each metric over time, first using all available data, and then in a subsample (n = 1,890) of patients with complete data on all metrics.
resultsAmong all patients, the greatest stride towards ideal CVH attainment from 2012 to 2015 was for cigarette smoking (50.6 percent to 65 percent), followed by DM (17.3 percent to 20.7 percent) and BP (21.1 percent to 23.2 percent). Overall, prevalence of ideal CVH did not increase for any metric in the subsample. Males slightly improved in ideal CVH for BMI and cholesterol; meanwhile, females saw no improvement in ideal CVH for any metric. As ideal CVH for BP and cholesterol increased slightly among white patients, ideal CVH for BP, cholesterol, BMI, and DM worsened for non-whites.
conclusionDespite improvements in some CVH metrics in the outpatient setting, more tangible progress is needed to meet AHA's 2020 Impact Goals.
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.