ArticleBMJ open2023
Efficiency and effectiveness of intensive multidisciplinary follow-up of patients with stroke/TIA or myocardial infarction compared to usual monitoring: protocol of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial. DiVa (Dijon vascular) study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04188457 (Medical-economic Evaluation Comparing Intensive Outpatient Monitoring of Neuro-cardiovascular Diseases by Nurses, Doctors and Hospital and Private-sector Pharmacists, Compared to Usual Monitoring.), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Medical-economic Evaluation Comparing Intensive Outpatient Monitoring of Neuro-cardiovascular Diseases by Nurses, Doctors and Hospital and Private-sector Pharmacists, Compared to Usual Monitoring.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk of Ischemic Stroke After Transient Ischemic Attack in Patients Receiving Comprehensive Versus Noncomprehensive Diagnostic Workup: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe ongoing ageing population is associated with an increase in the number of patients suffering a stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or myocardial infarction (MI). In these patients, implementing secondary prevention is a critical challenge and new strategies need to be developed to close the gap between clinical practice and evidence-based recommendations. We describe the protocol of a randomised clinical trial that aims to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of an intensive multidisciplinary follow-up of patients compared with standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DiVa study is a randomised, prospective, controlled, multicentre trial including patients >18 years old with a first or recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) or TIA, or a type I or II MI, managed in one of the participating hospitals of the study area, with a survival expectancy >12 months. Patients will be randomised with an allocation ratio of 1:1 in two parallel groups: one group assigned to a multidisciplinary, nurse-based and pharmacist-based 2-year follow-up in association with general practitioners, neurologists and cardiologists versus one group with usual follow-up. In each group for each disease (stroke/TIA or MI), 430 patients will be enrolled (total of 1720 patients) over 3 years. The primary outcome will be the incremental cost-utility ratio at 24 months between intensive and standard follow-up in a society perspective. Secondary outcomes will include the incremental cost-utility ratio at 6 and 12 months, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at 24 months, reduction at 6, 12 and 24 months of the rates of death, unscheduled rehospitalisation and iatrogenic complications, changes in quality of life, net budgetary impact at 5 years of the intensive follow-up on the national health insurance perspective and analysis of factors having positive or negative effects on the implementation of the project in the study area. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained and all patients receive information about the study and give their consent to participate before randomisation. Results of the main trial and each of the secondary analyses will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04188457. Registered on 6 December 2019.
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.