Observational studyJournal of primary care & community health
Accuracy of Peripheral Arterial Disease Registers in UK General Practice: Case-Control Study.
Observational study in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Relationship of Non-Invasive Arterial Stiffness Parameters with 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Score in Post-COVID-19 Patients-The Results of a Cross-Sectional Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Designing a platform/adaptive randomised controlled trial for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) - The PAEDIS international platform trial development project.NIHR open research · 2024Article
- Photoplethysmography for the Assessment of Arterial Stiffness.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Home-Based Exercise Therapy in the Management of Intermittent Claudication: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2023Review
- Performance of the SCORE and Globorisk cardiovascular risk prediction models: a prospective cohort study in Dutch general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 20% of the UK population aged 55 to 75 years have evidence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD affects quality of life and life expectancy if not appropriately diagnosed and managed. At risk patients require accurate diagnosis to ensure optimal treatment to slow disease progression and minimize adverse outcomes.
aimTo assess the accuracy of general practice (GP) registration of the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). DESIGN AND
settingAn observational analytic case-control study. As part of a National Institute for Health Research-funded (ISRCTN13301188) project assessing novel diagnostic methods set in GP practice.
methodsA total of 125 patients registered as having PAD and 125 age- and sex-matched controls were recruited from 15 general practices across North East England. The register was then assessed for accuracy of diagnosis. Duplex vascular ultrasound scanning (DUS) undertaken by vascular scientists was used as the gold standard reference for PAD.
resultsThe PAD register had a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI 77%-92%) and specificity of 74% (95% CI 67%-81%) when compared with DUS. The positive predictive value, however, was 69.6% (95% CI 63%-75%) and negative predictive value 88.8% (95% CI 82%-92%). The overall diagnostic effectiveness of the PAD register was 79.2% (95% CI 73%-84%).
conclusionThis analysis indicates that while PAD is detected with reasonable sensitivity in primary care, many patients registered with a diagnosis of PAD lacked DUS-proven disease. Improved approaches to the objective diagnosis of PAD may improve diagnosis and management of PAD in primary care.
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.