ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Guideline Concordance of Statin Treatment Decisions: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline adherence for the management of cardiovascular disease in primary care: a scoping review.Family practice · 2026Article
- Prescription Rates, Polypharmacy and Prescriber Variability in Swiss General Practice-A Cross-Sectional Database Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Quality and variation of care for chronic kidney disease in Swiss general practice: A retrospective database study.PloS one · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guidelines recommend initiation of statins depending on cardiovascular risk and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to assess guideline concordance of statin treatment decisions and to find determinants of undertreatment in Swiss primary care in the period 2016-2019. We drew on electronic medical records of 8060 statin-naive patients (50.0% female, median age 59 years) with available LDL-C levels and cardiovascular risk. Guideline concordance was assessed based on the recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology, and multilevel logistic regression was performed to find determinants of undertreatment. We found that statin treatment was initiated in 10.2% of patients (50.0% female, median age 59 years) during one year of follow up. Treatment decisions were classified as guideline-concordant in 63.0%, as undertreatment in 35.8% and as overtreatment in 1.2%. Among determinants of undertreatment were small deviation from LDL-C treatment thresholds (odds ratio per decrease by 1 mmol/L: 2.09 [95% confidence interval 1.87-2.35]), high compared with very high cardiovascular risk (1.64 [1.30-2.05]), female sex (1.31 [1.05-1.64]), and being treated by older general practitioners (per 10 year decrease: 0.74 [0.61-0.90]). In conclusion, undertreatment of patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk was common, but general practitioners considered cardiovascular risk and LDL-C in their treatment decisions.
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.