Evidence mapPaperPMID 25835448Full record

ReviewJournal of the American College of Cardiology2015

Clinician-patient risk discussion for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention: importance to implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines.

Seth S Martin, Laurence S Sperling, Michael J Blaha, Peter W F Wilson, Ty J Gluckman, Roger S Blumenthal, Neil J Stone

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Seth S MartinCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: smart100@jhmi.edu.
Laurence S SperlingDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Michael J BlahaCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Peter W F WilsonDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ty J GluckmanCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Providence Heart and Vascular Institute, Portland, Oregon.
Roger S BlumenthalCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Neil J StoneDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

CARDIOVASCULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY INSTITUTIONAL TRAININGT32HL007024 · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · 1985 to 2025
$3.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007024NHLBI NIH HHS T32HL07024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful implementation of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines hinges on a clear understanding of the clinician-patient risk discussion (CPRD). This is a dialogue between the clinician and patient about potential for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction benefits, adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences. Designed especially for primary prevention patients, this process of shared decision making establishes the appropriateness of a statin for a specific patient. CPRD respects the autonomy of an individual striving to make an informed choice aligned with personal values and preferences. Dedicating sufficient time to high-quality CPRD offers an opportunity to strengthen clinician-patient relationships, patient engagement, and medication adherence. We review the guideline-recommended CPRD, the general concept of shared decision making and decision aids, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Risk Estimator application as an implementation tool, and address potential barriers to implementation.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsAmerican Heart AssociationAtherosclerosisDecision MakingFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMalePrimary PreventionRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsRisk Reduction BehaviorUnited StatesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitorscerebrovascular diseasecoronary heart diseaselipid-lowering therapymyocardial infarctionrisk estimationshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID25835448
PMCPMC4760944

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.