Systematic Review of Guidelines on Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Which Recommendations Should Clinicians Follow for a Cardiovascular Health Check?

被引:113
作者
Ferket, Bart S. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Colkesen, Ersen B. [4 ,5 ]
Visser, Jacob J. [2 ]
Spronk, Sandra [1 ,2 ]
Kraaijenhagen, Roderik A. [4 ]
Steyerberg, Ewout W. [3 ]
Hunink, M. G. Myriam [1 ,2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus MC, Dept Epidemiol, NL-3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Erasmus MC, Dept Radiol, NL-3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Erasmus MC, Dept Publ Hlth, NL-3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands
[4] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, NDDO Inst Prevent & Early Diagnost, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Cardiol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[6] Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
CORONARY-HEART-DISEASE; PRIMARY-CARE; SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT; MULTIPLE BIOMARKERS; POSITION STATEMENT; PRIMARY PREVENTION; TASK-FORCE; PREDICTION; MANAGEMENT; EVENTS;
D O I
10.1001/archinternmed.2009.434
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To appraise guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment to guide selection of screening interventions for a health check. Data Sources: Guidelines in the English language published between January 1, 2003, and May 2, 2009, were retrieved using MEDLINE and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the National Guideline Clearing-house, National Library for Health, Canadian Medical Association Infobase, and G-I-N International Guideline Library. Study Selection: We included guidelines developed on behalf of professional organizations from Western countries, containing recommendations on cardiovascular risk assessment for the apparently healthy population. Titles and abstracts were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Of 1984 titles identified, 27 guidelines met our criteria. Data Extraction: Rigor of guideline development was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer ex-tracted information on conflicts of interest and recommendations. Results: Sixteen of 27 guidelines reported conflicts of interest and 17 showed considerable rigor. These included recommendations on assessment of total cardiovascular risk (7 guidelines), dyslipidemia (2), hypertension (2), and dysglycemia (7). Recommendations on total cardiovascular risk and dyslipidemia included prediction models integrating multiple risk factors, whereas remaining recommendations were focused on single risk factors. No consensus was found on recommended target populations, treatment thresholds, and screening tests. Conclusions: Differences among the guidelines imply important variation in allocation of preventive interventions. To make informed decisions, physicians should use only the recommendations from rigorously developed guidelines.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 40
页数:14
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]   International Diabetes Federation: a consensus on Type 2 diabetes prevention [J].
Alberti, K. G. M. M. ;
Zimmet, P. ;
Shaw, J. .
DIABETIC MEDICINE, 2007, 24 (05) :451-463
[2]   Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2009 [J].
不详 .
DIABETES CARE, 2009, 32 :S13-S61
[3]  
[Anonymous], RISK EST PREV CARD D
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Can J Diabetes, V32, pS1, DOI DOI 10.1503/CMAJ.080554
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2001, The Medical Journal of Australia, V175, ps57
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2009, CONFL INT MED RES ED
[7]  
[Anonymous], SCREEN LIP DIS AD
[8]  
[Anonymous], ASS MAN CARD RISK
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2005, Global guideline for Type 2 diabetes
[10]   Lipids and CVD management: towards a global consensus [J].
Ballantyne, C ;
Arroll, B ;
Shepherd, J .
EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2005, 26 (21) :2224-2231