The use of statins: a case of misleading priorities?

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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

1. How equitable are GP practice prescribing rates for statins?: an ecological study in four primary care trusts in North West England.International journal for equity in health · 2007
   Article
2. What do we gain from the sixth coronary heart disease drug?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003
   Article
3. Use of statins in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: is treatment equitable?Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2002
   Article
4. [Are the Framingham tables directly applicable to the Mediterranean population?].Atencion primaria · 2002
   Article
5. Medicalisation, limits to medicine, or never enough money to go around?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
   Article
6. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis.PharmacoEconomics · 2001
   Review
7. The impact of health economics on healthcare delivery: the health economists' perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2001
   Review
8. [The quality of the drug treatment in hyperlipemia patients from 4 health areas. The VICAF Group].Atencion primaria · 2000
   Article
9. The primary prevention of coronary heart disease with statins: practice headache or public health?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
   Article
10. Statins and the prevention of coronary heart disease: striking a balance that is desirable, affordable, and achievable.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
11. The cost-effectiveness of lipid lowering in patients with ischaemic heart disease: an intervention and evaluation in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
12. Management of UTI in general practice: a cost effective analysis. A commentary to facilitate an understanding of economic evaluation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
13. Not playing with a full DEC: why development and evaluation committee methods for appraising new drugs may be inadequate.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999
    Article
14. Applying the Sheffield tables to data from general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999
    Article
15. Clinical guidelines-the hidden costs.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999
    Review
16. A simple computer program for guiding management of cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999
    Article
17. From trial data to practical knowledge: qualitative study of how general practitioners have accessed and used evidence about statin drugs in their management of hypercholesterolaemia.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998
    Article
18. Implications of applying widely accepted cholesterol screening and management guidelines to a British adult population: cross sectional study of cardiovascular disease and risk factors.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998
    Article
19. Economic benefit analysis of primary prevention with pravastatin. Modelling economic benefits after such long term treatment is inappropriate.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998
    Article
20. Patients offered treatment for CHD need full information to make decisionBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Adequacy of SMAC's statement should be judged by clinicians, not health economists.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Trent Institute's Research Working Group has produced guidance for purchasers.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Other, cheaper and simpler, measures should be tried first.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. In New Zealand, subsidy of statins is limited to particular groups of patients.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Guidelines need to concentrate on reducing overall cardiovascular risk.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Faculty's advice does refer to cost effectiveness.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Results of different studies differed greatly.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Glasgow has already produced strategy for treatment.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Health authorities must work with clinicians to target statins.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. More evidence is needed for guidelines.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Evidence on effectiveness is stronger for statins than for other treatments.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Sheffield tables have shortcomings.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Cost effectiveness was studied in 4S study.1997
• Commented on by
  Use of statins. Standing Medical Advisory Committee should reconsider advice to use Sheffield risk table.1997

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as