ArticleFamily practice2026
Guideline adherence for the management of cardiovascular disease in primary care: a scoping review.
Article in Family practice, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) persist as a leading cause of mortality. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to support evidence-based decision-making and improve outcomes in primary care. However, application of these guidelines is often inconsistent, raising concerns about potential unconsidered barriers to implementation.
objectivesThis review aimed to assess the extent to which CVD-related CPGs are followed in general practice and factors influencing the application.
methodsA structured literature review was conducted in August 2025 in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, using MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria comprised original studies in English or German that focused on CPG adherence in primary care related to CVDs.
resultsAfter screening 791 studies, 37 were included. Most of these studies had a cross-sectional design and were conducted in Europe. Reported CPG application varied considerably, ranging from 4% to 100% depending on the disease area and evaluation method. Factors influencing CPG application included time constraints, systemic factors, and limitations within the guidelines themselves. Especially complex cases led to concerns about side effects and to deviations from the guideline.
conclusionDespite high awareness, the adherence to cardiovascular guidelines in general practice has a high variance. As patients in primary care are often multimorbid, evidence-based recommendations often need to be tailored to the patient's needs. Guideline enhancement should therefore emphasize practicality, comprehensibility, and the incorporation of general practitioners' viewpoints.
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.