Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1998
Screening for hypercholesterolaemia in primary care: randomised controlled trial of postal questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are interventions to increase the uptake of screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC family practice · 2017Pooled it
- Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Pooled it
- Eating control and eating behavior modification to reduce abdominal obesity: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.Nutrition research and practice · 2021Article
- What are the determinants for individuals to undergo cardiovascular disease health checks? A cross sectional survey.PloS one · 2018Article
- Opportunistic screening carried out in the family medicine settings.Croatian medical journal · 2008Article
- Missed opportunities for coronary heart disease diagnoses: primary care experience.Croatian medical journal · 2007Article
- A coronary heart disease risk score based on patient-reported information.The American journal of cardiology · 2007Article
- Using disease risk estimates to guide risk factor interventions: field test of a patient workbook for self-assessing coronary risk.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo validate a self administered postal questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease. To determine whether use of this questionnaire increased the percentage of people at high risk of coronary heart disease and decreased the percentage of people at low risk who had their cholesterol concentration measured.
designValidation was by review of medical records and clinical assessment. The questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease encouraged those meeting criteria for cholesterol measurement to have a cholesterol test and was tested in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention group was sent the risk appraisal questionnaire with a health questionnaire that determined risk of coronary heart disease without identifying the risk factors as related to coronary heart disease; the control group was sent the health questionnaire alone.
settingOne capitation funded primary care practice in Canada with an enrolled patient population of about 12 000. SUBJECTS: Random sample of 100 participants in the intervention and control groups were included in the validation exercise. 5686 contactable patients aged 20 to 69 years who on the basis of practice records had not had a cholesterol test performed during the preceding 5 years were included in the randomised controlled trial. 2837 were in the intervention group and 2849 were in the control group.
main outcome measuresSensitivity and specificity of assessment of risk of coronary heart disease with risk appraisal questionnaire. Rate of cholesterol testing during three months of follow up.
resultsSensitivity of questionnaire appraising coronary risk was 87.5% (95% confidence interval 73.2% to 95.8%) and specificity 91.7% (81.6% to 97.2%). Of the patients without pre-existing coronary heart disease who met predefined screening criteria based on risk, 45 out of 421 in the intervention group (10.7%) and 9 out of 504 in the control group (1.8%) had a cholesterol test performed during follow up (P<0.0001). Of the patients without a history of coronary heart disease who did not meet criteria for cholesterol testing, 30 out of 1128 in the intervention group (2.7%) and 18 out of 1099 in the control group (1.6%) had a cholesterol test (P=0.175). Of the patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease, 1 out of 15 in the intervention group (6.7%) and 1 out of 23 in the control group (4.3%) were tested during follow up (P=0.851, one tailed Fisher's exact test).
conclusionsAlthough the questionnaire appraising coronary risk increased the percentage of people at high risk who obtained cholesterol testing, the effect was small. Most patients at risk who received the questionnaire did not respond by having a test.
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.