Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34991551›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2022

The impact of clinical and population strategies on coronary heart disease mortality: an assessment of Rose's big idea.

Mohadeseh Ahmadi, Bruce Lanphear

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Cause of death statistics-how to avoid misinterpretation of mortality data].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohadeseh AhmadiFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Bruce LanphearFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. blanphear@sfu.ca.
Simon Fraser University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoronary heart disease (CHD), the leading cause of death worldwide, has declined in many affluent countries but it continues to rise in industrializing countries.

objectiveTo quantify the relative contribution of the clinical and population strategies to the decline in CHD mortality in affluent countries.

designMeta-analysis of cross-sectional and prospective studies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Web of Science from January 1, 1970 to December 31, 2019.

methodWe combined and analyzed data from 22 cross-sectional and prospective studies, representing 500 million people, to quantify the relative decline in CHD mortality attributable to the clinical strategy and population strategy.

resultThe population strategy accounted for 48% (range = 19 to 73%) of the decline in CHD deaths and the clinical strategy accounted for 42% (range = 25 to 56%), with moderate inconsistency of results across studies.

conclusionSince 1970, a larger fraction of the decline in CHD deaths in industrialized countries was attributable to reduction in CHD risk factors than medical care. Population strategies, which are more cost-effective than clinical strategies, are under-utilized.

Indexed as

Coronary DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMortalityProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34991551
PMCPMC8734316
OpenAlexW4205994823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.