ArticleLipids in health and disease2025
Automated process assessment of primary healthcare for hyperlipidemia: preliminary findings and implications form Anhui, China.
Article in Lipids in health and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary healthcare (PHC) plays a key role in hyperlipidemia (HL) management yet lacks adequate monitoring and feedback. This study aims at identifying pragmatic measures out from routinely collected electronic records to enable automatic monitoring and inform continuous optimization of HL-management at PHC settings.
methodsThe study used randomly selected electronic records of PHC (from the province-wide data center of Anhui-province, China) as the main data source and generated both procedure-based and encounter-based measures for assessing HL-management. The procedure-based measures were derived from specific quality-facts of 21 stages/procedures (e.g., lipid lowering medication prescription) using self-designed algorithms. While the encounter-based measures included number or rate of visits for HL, currently-noticed hyperlipidemia (CNHL, or HL noticed during the current consultation), and ever-diagnosed hyperlipidemia (EDHL). Analysis of these measures employed mainly simple descriptives and linear regression modeling.
resultsThe study revealed interesting findings including: low and varied rates of visits for HL(from 0.01 to 1.43%) and visits by patients with EDHL/CNHL(from 0.13 to 20.54% or from 0.02 to 2.99%) between regions; large differences (5.14 to 22.20 times) between the mean or cumulative proportions of visits by patients with EDHL versus CNHL among clinician groups; consistent increase in the ratio of visits for HL in all cause visits over the study period (from 0.087 to 1.000%) accompanied with relatively stable proportions of patients with CNHL/EDHL; Relatively low scores in the procedure-based measures (ranged from 0.00 to 36.08% for specific procedures by seasons).
conclusionsThe measures identified are not only feasible from real-world PHC records but also give some useful metrics about how well current HL-management is going and what future actions are needed.
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.