Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised controlled trial evaluating cardiovascular screening and intervention in general practice: principal results of British family heart study

Wood, D A, Kinmonth, A L, Davies, G A, Yarwood, J, Thompson, S G, Pyke, S D M, Kok, Y, Cramb, R, Le Guen, C, Marteau, T M, Durrington, P N·1994·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To measure the change in cardiovascular risk factors achievable in families over one year by a cardiovascular screening and lifestyle intervention in general practice. Design : Randomised controlled trial in 26 general practices in 13 towns in Britain. Subjects : 12472 men aged 40-59 and their partners (7460 men and 5012 women) identified by household. Intervention : Nurse led programme using a family centred approach with follow up according to degree of risk. Main outcome measures : After one year the pairs of practices were compared for differences in (a) total coronary (Dundee) risk score and (b) cigarette smoking, weight, blood pressure, and random blood cholesterol and glucose concentrations. Results : In men the overall reduction in coronary risk score was 16% (95% confidence interval 11% to 21%) in the intervention practices at one year. This was partitioned between systolic pressure (7%), smoking (5%), and cholesterol concentration (4%). The reduction for women was similar. For both sexes reported cigarette smoking at one year was lower by about 4%, systolic pressure by 7 mm Hg, diastolic pressure by 3 mm Hg, weight by 1 kg, and cholesterol concentration by 0.1 mmol/l, but there was no shift in glucose concentration. Weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol concentration showed the greatest difference at the top of the distribution. If maintained long term the differences in risk factors achieved would mean only a 12% reduction in risk of coronary events. Conclusions : As most general practices are not using such an intensive programme the changes in coronary risk factors achieved by the voluntary health promotion package for primary care are likely to be even smaller. The government's screening policy cannot be justified by these results.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.308.6924.313

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wood, D. A., Kinmonth, A. L., Davies, G. A., Yarwood, J., Thompson, S. G., Pyke, S. D. M., Kok, Y., Cramb, R., Le Guen, C., Marteau, T. M., & Durrington, P. N.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1994-01-29
Volume
308
Issue
6924
Pages
313-320
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1971292717
Cited by
379
References
1
FWCI
42.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.