ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature.BMC health services research · 2008Pooled it
- Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2003Pooled it
- Aspirin for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: safety and absolute benefit related to coronary risk derived from meta-analysis of randomised trials.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2001Pooled it
- The Fremantle Primary Prevention Study: a multicentre randomised trial of absolute cardiovascular risk reduction.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012Trial
- Discussing coronary risk with patients to improve blood pressure treatment: secondary results from the CHECK-UP study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2009Trial
- Lipid screening to prevent coronary artery disease: a quantitative evaluation of evolving guidelines.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2000Trial
- Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Trial
- Estimation of cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000Trial
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Risk prediction model construction for post myocardial infarction heart failure by blood immune B cells.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Using cancer risk algorithms to improve risk estimates and referral decisions.Communications medicine · 2022Article
- Systematic examination of a heart failure risk prediction tool: The pooled cohort equations to prevent heart failure.PloS one · 2020Article
- Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality in Adults Aged ≥60 Years According to Recommendations by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family Physicians.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Article
- Frailty-a strong risk marker in heart surgery?Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Using Predicted Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Conjunction With Blood Pressure to Guide Antihypertensive Medication Treatment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2017Review
- Cardiovascular disease risk factors in a Nigerian population with impaired fasting blood glucose level and diabetes mellitus.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Ruling Out Pulmonary Embolism in Primary Care: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of "Gestalt" and the Wells Rule.Annals of family medicine · 2016Article
- Delirium risk stratification in consecutive unselected admissions to acute medicine: validation of externally derived risk scores.Age and ageing · 2016Article
- Family history assessment for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk analysis - comparison of diagram- and questionnaire-based web interfaces.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the ability of doctors in primary care to assess risk patients' risk of coronary heart disease.
designQuestionnaire survey.
settingContinuing medical education meetings, Ontario and Quebec, Canada. SUBJECTS: Community based doctors who agreed to enroll in the coronary health assessment study.
main outcome measureRatings of coronary risk factors and estimates by doctors of relative and absolute coronary risk of two hypothetical patients and the "average" 40 year old Canadian man and 70 year old Canadian woman.
results253 doctors answered the questionnaire. For 30 year olds the doctors rated cigarette smoking as the most important risk factor and raised serum triglyceride concentrations as the least important; for 70 year old patients they rated diabetes as the most important risk factor and raised serum triglyceride concentrations as the least important. They rated each individual risk factor as significantly less important for 70 year olds than for 30 year olds (all risk factors, P < 0.001). They showed a strong understanding of the relative importance of specific risk factors, and most were confident in their ability to estimate coronary risk. While doctors accurately estimated the relative risk of a specific patient (compared with the average adult) they systematically overestimated the absolute baseline risk of developing coronary disease and the risk reductions associated with specific interventions.
conclusionsDespite guidelines on targeting patients at high risk of coronary disease accurate assessment of coronary risk remains difficult for many doctors. Additional strategies must be developed to help doctors to assess better their patients' coronary risk.
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.