Physicians' estimates of the 10-year cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: An evaluation in primary care physicians in training

Swiss Medical Weekly

Volumn 136, Issue 37-38, 2006, Pages 603-608

  Senn, Michèle ^a   Favrat, Bernard ^a   Vaucher, Paul ^a   Burnier, Michel ^a,b,c  

^a POLICLINIQUE MÉDICALE UNIVERSITAIRE   (Switzerland)

^b Service de Néphrologie et Consultation d'Hypertension   (Switzerland)

^c LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular risk; Hypertension

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT;

ADULT; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; PREDICTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 33749620388     PISSN: 14247860     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, Collins R, Sorlie P, Neaton J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet. 1990;335:765-74.
2. Guidelines Committee. 2003 European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens. 2003;21:1011-53.
3. Jackson R, Barham P, Bills J, McLennan, MacMahon S, Maling T. Management of raised blood pressure in New Zealand: a discussion document. BMJ. 1993;307:107-10.
4. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413-46.
5. Chatellier G, Ménard J. The absolute risk as a guide to influence the treatment decision-making process in mild hypertension. J Hypertens. 1997;15:217-9.
6. Chatellier G, Blinowska A, Menard J, Degoulet P. Do physicians estimate reliably the cardiovascular risk of hypertensive patients? Medinfo. 1995;8 Pt 2:876-9.
7. Hanon O, Franconi G, Mourad JJ, Baleydier A, Croce I, Girerd X. The estimation of cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients is not modified by management of the hypertension. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 2000;93:943-7.
8. Hingorani A, Vallance P. A simple computer program for guiding management of cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing. BMJ. 1999;318:101-5.
9. Hunt D, Haynes RB, Hanna S, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280:1339-46.
10. Montgomery AA, Fahey T. A systematic review of the use of computers in the management of hypertension. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:520-5.
11. Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ, MacIntosh C, Sharp DJ. Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2000;320:686-90.
12. Hagemeister J, Schneider CA, Barabas S, Schadt R, Wassmer G, Mager G, Pfaff H, Hopp HW. Hypertension guidelines and their limitations - the impact of physicians' compliance as evaluated by guidelines awareness. J Hypertens. 2001;19:2079-86.
13. World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of hypertension, 1999. Guidelines subcommittee. J Hypertens. 1999;17:151-83.
14. Grover S, Lowensteyn I, Esrey K, Steinert Y, Joseph L, Abrahamowicz M. Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study. BMJ. 1995;310:975-8.
15. Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ. 2004;328:1519.
16. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PWF, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J. 1991;121:293-8.
17. Haq IU, Ramsay LE, Yeo WW, Jackson PR, Wallis EJ. Is the Framingham risk function valid for northern European populations? A comparison of methods for estimating absolute coronary risk in high risk men. Heart. 1999;81:40-6.
18. Empana JP, Ducimetiere P, Arveiler D, Ferrières J, et al. Are Framingham and PROCAM coronary heart disease risk functions applicable to different European populations? Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1903-11.
19. Laurier D, Phong Chau N, Cazelles B, et al and the PCV-METRA Group. Estimation of CHD risk in a French working population using a modified Framingham model. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1353-64.
20. Thomsen TF, McGee D, Jorgensen DM. A cross-validation of risk-scores for coronary heart disease mortality based on data from the Glostrup Population Studies and Framingham Heart Study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:817-22.
21. Menotti A, Puddu PE, Lanti M. Comparison of the Framingham risk function-based coronary chart with risk function from Italian population study. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:365-70.
22. Bastuji-Garin S, Deverly A, Moyse D, Castaigne A, et al. The Framingham prediction rule is not valid in a European population of treated hypertensive patients. J Hypertens. 2002;20: 1973-80.
23. Leaf DA, Neighbor WE, Schaad D, et al. A comparison of self-report and chart audit in studying resident physician assessment of cardiac risk factors. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:194-8.
24. Ketola E, Sipilä R, Mäkelä M, Klockars M. Quality improvement programme for cardiovascular disease risk factor recording in primary care. Qual Health Care. 2000;9:175-80.