ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2017
Current guidelines on prevention with a focus on dyslipidemias.
Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting fatty acid synthase reduces aortic atherosclerosis and inflammation.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Association between the PLTP rs4810479 SNP and Serum Lipid Traits in the Chinese Maonan and Han Populations.Genetics research · 2021Article
- Therapeutic effects of statins on chromosomal DNA damage of dyslipidemic patients.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019Article
- Attenuation of atherogenic apo B-48-dependent hyperlipidemia and high density lipoprotein remodeling induced by vitamin C and E combination and their beneficial effect on lethal ischemic heart disease in mice.Biological research · 2018Article
- MDG-1, a Potential Regulator of PPARα and PPARγ, Ameliorates Dyslipidemia in Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Examination of the current the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on the prevention of cardiovascular disease and the management of dyslipidemias finds much common ground. Both note that Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is, in most people, the product of a number of risk factors, notably tobacco exposure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, inactivity, overweight and diabetes. They stress that risk calculators can help in the assessment of risk in apparently healthy persons. Persons with established ASCVD and many with diabetes or renal impairment are at high to very high risk and warrant intensive risk factor advice and guideline-based preventive therapies. The ACC/AHA guidelines favor the universal use of statins in all high-risk subjects and in primary prevention where the global risk exceeds 7.5% in 10 years, with a percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) based on statin intensity as the "goal". In contrast, the ESC/EAS guidelines favor a goal or percentage-based reduction in LDL-C based on total risk and baseline LDL-C level. Both guidelines consider certain imaging and other measures to stratify risk as well as the use of non-statin therapies in those not achieving recommended targets. Perhaps the most important challenges are to stress similarities rather than differences, and to simplify communications with both healthcare professionals and the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.