CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,251Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice Third Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of eight societies and by invited experts)

De Backer, G·2003·European Heart Journal
DOI 10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00347-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Guidelines aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making. A great number of guidelines have been issued in recent years by different organizations-European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and other related societies. By means of links to web sites of National Societies several hundred guidelines are available. This profusion can put at stake the authority and validity of guidelines, which can only be guaranteed if they have been developed by an unquestionable decision-making process. This is one of the reasons why the ESC and others have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing guidelines. In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality guidelines are well defined, recent surveys of guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore of great importance that guidelines and recommendations are presented in formats that are easily interpreted. Subsequently, their implementation programmes must also be well conducted. Attempts have been made to determine whether guidelines improve the quality of clinical practice and the utilization of health resources. In addition, the legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed and examined, resulting in position documents, which have been published by a specific Task Force.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00347-6

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 999

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
De Backer, G.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-09
Volume
24
Issue
17
Pages
1601-1610
ISSN
0195-668X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00347-6
OpenAlex
W2153788691
Cited by
2,251
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 92 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 87 · 2012: 98
FWCI
206.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Keywords
cardiovascular disease prevention, guideline development methodology, quality of evidence, clinical decision-making, guideline implementation, cardiovascular risk management
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diagnostic Imaging, Diet, Europe, Health Priorities, Humans, Lipids, Risk Factors, Exercise, Risk Assessment

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