CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 270Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Results of the National Cholesterol Education (NCEP) Program Evaluation Project Utilizing Novel E-Technology (NEPTUNE) II Survey and Implications for Treatment Under the Recent NCEP Writing Group Recommendations

Davidson, Michael H., Maki, Kevin C., Pearson, Thomas A., Pasternak, Richard C., Deedwania, Prakash C., McKenney, James M., Fonarow, Gregg C., Maron, David J., Ansell, Benjamin J., Clark, Luther T., Ballantyne, Christie M.·2005·The American Journal of Cardiology
DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.04.019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The most recent national survey of compliance with the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) guidelines was completed before ATP III and showed significant underachievement of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals. The NCEP Evaluation ProjecT Utilizing Novel E-Technology (NEPTUNE) II was a national survey conducted in 2003. Of the 4,885 patients, 67% achieved their LDL cholesterol treatment goal, including 89%, 76%, and 57%, respectively, in the 0 or 1 risk factor, > or = 2 risk factors or coronary heart disease (CHD), and CHD risk equivalent categories. The percentage with triglyceride concentrations > or = 200 mg/dl (2.25 mmol/L) in each risk category who achieved their LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals was 64%, 52%, and 27%, respectively. Patients with diabetes (55%) and other CHD risk equivalents (40%) were less likely to have achieved their LDL cholesterol targets than those with CHD (62%). Of the 1,447 patients with cardiovascular disease, 75% could be classified as very high risk according to the new July 2004 NCEP Writing Group recommendations, and 17.8% of those at very high risk had an LDL cholesterol level of <70 mg/dl (<1.81 mmol/L). In conclusion, these results suggest improved lipid management compared with previous surveys. The largest treatment gaps were found for features new to ATP III as of July 2004, including goal achievement for patients with CHD risk equivalents and for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets. Most of those (75%) with cardiovascular disease in NEPTUNE II would be considered very high risk and candidates for aggressive therapy to reach the new optional treatment goals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.04.019

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 268

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Davidson, M. H., Maki, K. C., Pearson, T. A., Pasternak, R. C., Deedwania, P. C., McKenney, J. M., Fonarow, G. C., Maron, D. J., Ansell, B. J., Clark, L. T., & Ballantyne, C. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • National Clinical Research (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Davidson, Michael H.
ORCID
Venue
The American Journal of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-08
Volume
96
Issue
4
Pages
556-563
ISSN
0002-9149 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.04.019
OpenAlex
W1969054950
Cited by
270
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 19
FWCI
28.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • The American Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
National Cholesterol Education Program, Adult Treatment Panel III, non-HDL cholesterol, cardiovascular risk stratification, very high-risk patients, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, treatment gap, lipid control, aggressive lipid-lowering therapy
MeSH terms
Anticholesteremic Agents, Cholesterol, Coronary Artery Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Medical Laboratory Science, Hypertriglyceridemia, Program Evaluation, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review