ArticleBJGP open2020
GPs' familiarity with and use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules: a UK survey study.
Article in BJGP open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research inefficiencies in external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease risk rule: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Determining cardiovascular risk in patients with unattributed chest pain in UK primary care: an electronic health record study.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Article
- Absolute cardiovascular risk assessment by Australian early-career general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.Family medicine and community health · 2023Article
- Predicted cardiovascular disease risk and prescribing of antihypertensive therapy among patients with hypertension in Australia using MedicineInsight.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Article
- Strategies to tackle non-communicable diseases in Afghanistan: A scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical prediction rules (CPRs) can help general practitioners (GPs) address challenges in cardiovascular disease. A survey published in 2014 evaluated GPs' awareness and use of CPRs in the UK. However, many new CPRs have been published since and it is unknown which cardiovascular CPRs are currently recognised and used.
aimTo identify cardiovascular CPRs recognised and used by GPs, and to assess how GPs' familiarity and use have changed over time. DESIGN &
settingAn online survey of GPs in the UK was undertaken.
methodUsing comparable methods to the 2014 survey, GPs were recruited from a network of doctors in the UK. They were asked how familiar they were with cardiovascular CPRs, how frequently they used them, and why they used them. The results were compared with the 2014 survey.
resultsMost of 401 GPs were familiar with QRISK scores, ABCD scores, CHADS scores, HAS-BLED score, Wells scores for deep vein thrombosis, and Wells scores for pulmonary embolism. The proportions of GPs using these CPRs were 96.3%, 65.1%, 97.3%, 93.0%, 92.5%, and 82.0%, respectively. GPs' use increased by 31.2% for QRISK scores, by 13.5% for ABCD scores, by 54.6% for CHADS scores, by 33.2% for Wells scores for deep vein thrombosis, and by 43.6% for Wells scores for pulmonary embolism; and decreased by 45.9% for the Joint British Societies (JBS) risk calculator, by 38.7% for Framingham risk scores, and by 8.7% for New Zealand tables. GPs most commonly used cardiovascular CPRs to guide therapy and referral.
conclusionThe study found GPs' familiarity and use of cardiovascular CPRs changed substantially. Integrating CPRs into guidelines and practice software might increase familiarity and use.
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.