ArticleBJGP open2021
Integrated cardiovascular risk management programme versus usual care in patients at high cardiovascular risk: an observational study in general practice.
Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- STEPWISE management of clinically apparent resistant hypertension in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- Cardiovascular risk reduction with integrated care: results of 8 years follow up.BMC primary care · 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite the impact of CVDs, risk factors are often insufficiently controlled in patients at high risk. Recently, integrated multidisciplinary cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) programmes have been introduced in primary care.
aimTo investigate the effects of a CVRM programme on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol. DESIGN &
settingA prospective observational study was undertaken in patients at high cardiovascular (CV) risk who were aged 40-80 years. Integrated CVRM care was compared with usual care in general practice in the Netherlands.
methodIntervention and usual care patients were matched at baseline on age, sex, and presence of CVD. During 1 year of follow-up, patients received integrated or usual CVRM care in general practice. Primary outcomes were SBP and LDL-cholesterol. Secondary outcomes included calculated 10-year CV risk, body mass index (BMI), lifestyle (smoking, physical activity, and dietary habits), medication use, patient satisfaction, healthcare consumption, morbidity, comorbidity, and mortality. Mixed-model analyses were used to assess the outcomes.
resultsTotals of 372 and 317 patients were included in the intervention and usual care group, respectively. Mean age at baseline was 65.1 years and 66.2 years, respectively, and 42% were female in both groups. After 1 year, no differences were observed in: SBP (137.2 mmHg versus 139.0 mmHg in the intervention and usual care group, respectively); LDL-cholesterol (2.6 mmol/l in both groups); or in any of the secondary outcomes.
conclusionIntegrated CVRM care in general practice did not lead to a lower SBP or LDL-cholesterol in patients at high CV risk. Further research is needed to improve CVRM.
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.