Evidence mapPaperPMID 26466804Full record

Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2015

Cardiovascular secondary prevention in high-risk patients: a randomized controlled trial sub-study.

Stina Jakobsson, Anna-Lotta Irewall, Fredrik Bjorklund, Thomas Mooe

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Stina JakobssonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Division of Medicine, Ostersund sjukhus, Umea University, Umea, Sweden. stina.jakobsson@umu.se.
Anna-Lotta IrewallDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Division of Medicine, Ostersund sjukhus, Umea University, Umea, Sweden. lotta.irewall@gmail.com.
Fredrik BjorklundDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Division of Medicine, Ostersund sjukhus, Umea University, Umea, Sweden. fredrik@cordiem.se.
Thomas MooeDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Division of Medicine, Ostersund sjukhus, Umea University, Umea, Sweden. thomas.mooe@umu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced cardiovascular secondary preventive follow-up is needed to improve adherence to recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and blood pressure (BP) levels. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high risk of recurrent events. Secondary prevention is therefore essential in these patients.

methodsPatients with acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or transient ischemic attack were randomized to nurse-based telephone follow-up (intervention) or usual care (control). LDL-C and BP were measured at 1 month (baseline) and 12 months post-discharge. Intervention patients with above-target values at baseline received medication titration to achieve treatment goals. Values measured for control patients were given to the patient's general practitioner for assessment.

resultsThe final analyses included 225 intervention and 215 control patients with DM or CKD. Among patients with above-target baseline values, the following 12-month values were recorded for intervention and control patients, respectively: LDL-C, 2.2 versus 3.0 mmol/L (p < 0.001); and median systolic BP (SBP), 140 versus 145 mmHg (p = 0.26). Among patients with above-target values at baseline, 52.3 % of intervention patients reached target LDL-C values at 12 months versus 21.3 % of control patients (absolute difference of 30.9 %, 95 % CI 16.1 to 43.8 %), and there was a non-significant trend of more intervention patients reaching target SBP (49.4 % versus 36.8 %; absolute difference of 12.6 %, 95 % CI -1.7 to 26.2 %).

conclusionsCardiovascular secondary prevention with nurse-based telephone follow-up was more effective than usual care in improving LDL-C levels 12 months after discharge for patients with DM or CKD.

trial registrationISRCTN registry; ISRCTN96595458 (date of registration 10 July 2011) and ISRCTN23868518 (date of registration 13 May 2012).

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeAgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsCholesterol, LDLDiabetes MellitusDiabetic AngiopathiesFemaleHumansIschemic Attack, TransientMaleRecurrenceRenal Insufficiency, ChronicRisk FactorsSecondary PreventionStrokeAntihypertensive AgentsCholesterol, LDL

Identifiers

PMID26466804
PMCPMC4607173

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.