ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1998
Implications of applying widely accepted cholesterol screening and management guidelines to a British adult population: cross sectional study of cardiovascular disease and risk factors.
Article 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 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia screening with subsequent intervention letter on the use of blood pressure and lipid lowering drugs.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2004Trial
- Methodological and reporting quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- An appraisal of emergency medicine clinical practice guidelines: Do we agree?International journal of clinical practice · 2019Review
- Overprescribing of lipid lowering agents.Quality & safety in health care · 2006Article
- Primary prevention of coronary heart disease.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Article
- The extent and implications of sphygmomanometer calibration error in primary care.Journal of human hypertension · 2001Article
- Meeting the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease: which patients have untreated high blood pressure?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001Article
- [The quality of the drug treatment in hyperlipemia patients from 4 health areas. The VICAF Group].Atencion primaria · 2000Article
- Estimating cardiovascular risk for primary prevention: outstanding questions for primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Article
- Management of hypertension. Ideal body weight is not realistic goal for lifestyle intervention.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Article
- Models to predict cardiovascular risk: comparison of CART, multilayer perceptron and logistic regression.Proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2000Article
- Cholesterol screening and management guidelines. Having several guidelines is confusing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999Article
- Assessing heart disease risk in primary care. Cholesterol lowering should be just one part of a multiple risk factor intervention.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the implications of four widely used cholesterol screening and treatment guidelines by applying them to a population in the United Kingdom.
designGuidelines were applied to population based data from a cross sectional study of cardiovascular disease and risk factors.
settingNewcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: General population sample (predominantly of European origin) of 322 men and 319 women aged 25-64 years.
main outcome measuresProportions recommended for screening and treatment.
methodsCriteria from the British Hyperlipidaemia Association, the British Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin (which used the Sheffield table), the European Atherosclerosis Society, and the American national cholesterol education programme were applied to the population.
resultsProportions recommended for treatment varied appreciably. Based on the British Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin guidelines, treatment was recommended for 5.3% (95% confidence interval 2.9% to 7.7%) of men and 3.3% (1.5% to 5.3%) of women, while equivalent respective values were 4.6 (2.3 to 6.9) and 2.8 (1.0 to 4.6) for the British Hyperlipidaemia Association, 23% (18.4% to 27.6%) and 10.6% (7.3% to 14.0%) for the European Atherosclerosis Society, and 37.2% (31.9% to 42.5%) and 22.2% (17.6% to 26.8%) for the national cholesterol education programme. Only the British Hyperlipidaemia Association and Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin guidelines recommend selective screening. Applying British Hyperlipidaemia Association guidelines, from 7.1% (4.3% to 9.9%) of men in level one to 56.7% (51.3% to 62.1%) of men in level three, and from 4.4% (2.1% to 6.7%) of women in level one to 54.4% (48.9% to 59.9%) of women in level three would have been recommended for cholesterol screening. Had the Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin guidelines been applied, 22.2% (16.5% to 27.9%) of men and 12.2% (8. 6% to 15.8%) of women would have been screened.
conclusionsWithout evidence based guidelines, there are problems of variation. A consistent approach needs to be developed and agreed across the United Kingdom.
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.