SynthesisPloS one2024
Quality indicators for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Quality Indicators in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Contemporary Approaches and Persistent Measurement Gaps.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A scoping review of quality prescribing indicators, rules and criteria for primary care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of Pharmacist Case-Finding and Care Pathway Intervention for Vascular Prevention (PRCJC open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care is usually the entry point for preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Quality indicators can be used to assess and monitor the quality of care provided in a primary care setting. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify, summarise, and assess the methodological quality of indicators reported in the articles for the primary prevention of CVD in primary care.
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS, and grey literature for articles containing quality indicators published in English language. Quality indicators were categorised using the Donabedian framework: Structure (organisation of care), Process (assessment of metabolic risk factors, global risk assessment, lifestyle management, prescription of medications, risk communication/advice, referral), and Outcome (attainment of risk factor targets). Articles were reviewed by two authors, using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, where a score of ≥50% for each domain indicated strong methodological quality (e.g., stakeholder involvement).
resultsWe identified 282 articles for full-text review; 57 articles were included for extraction. A total of 726 (681 unique) quality indicators were extracted. Three out of four (76%) were process indicators (56 articles), followed by 15% outcome indicators (40 articles), and 9% structure indicators (12 articles). One-third of process indicators were related to the assessment of metabolic risk factors (222/726 indicators, 41 articles), followed by lifestyle management (153/726 indicators, 39 articles), prescription of medications (122/726 indicators, 37 articles), and global risk assessment (27/726, 14 articles). Few indicators were related to risk communication/advice (20/726 indicators, 7 articles) and referral (9/726 indicators, 6 articles). Only 26/57 (46%) articles were found to have strong methodological quality.
conclusionWe summarised and appraised the methodological quality of indicators for the primary prevention of CVD. The next step requires prioritising a minimum set of quality indicators to encourage standardised collection and monitoring across countries.
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.