Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

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

Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study

Open access
Grover, Steven A, Lowensteyn, Ilka, Esrey, Katja L, Steinert, Yvonne, Joseph, Lawrence, Abrahamowicz, Michal·1995·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To evaluate the ability of doctors in primary care to assess risk patients' risk of coronary heart disease. Design : Questionnaire survey. Setting : Continuing medical education meetings, Ontario and Quebec, Canada. Subjects : Community based doctors who agreed to enrol in the coronary health assessment study. Main outcome measure : Ratings of coronary risk factors and estimates by doctors of relative and absolute coronary risk of two hypothetical patients and the “average” 40 year old Canadian man and 70 year old Canadian woman. Results : 253 doctors answered the questionnaire. For 30 year olds the doctors rated cigarette smoking as the most important risk factor and raised serum triglyceride concentrations as the least important; for 70 year old patients they rated diabetes as the most important risk factor and raised serum triglyceride concentrations as the least important. They rated each individual risk factor as significantly less important for 70 year olds than for 30 year olds (all risk factors, P<0.001). They showed a strong understanding of the relative importance of specific risk factors, and most were confident in their ability to estimate coronary risk. While doctors accurately estimated the relative risk of a specific patient (compared with the average adult) they systematically overestimated the absolute baseline risk of developing coronary disease and the risk reductions associated with specific interventions. Conclusions : Despite guidelines on targeting patients at high risk of coronary disease accurate assessment of coronary risk remains difficult for many doctors. Additional strategies must be developed to help doctors to assess better their patients' coronary risk. Key messages: Key messages This study shows that doctors in primary care accurately assess the relative risk of coronary disease in individual patients They systematically overestimate, however, the absolute risk of coronary disease in individual patients Doctors in primary care also overestimate the absolute benefits of modification of coronary risk factors including lowering lipid concentration, control of blood pressure, and stopping smoking Additional strategies must be found to improve the skills in risk assessment among doctors in primary care to support their clinical decision making in individual patients

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.310.6985.975

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 181

Metadata

Authors
Grover, S. A., Lowensteyn, I., Esrey, K. L., Steinert, Y., Joseph, L., & Abrahamowicz, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1995-04-15
Volume
310
Issue
6985
Pages
975-978
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2085136351
Cited by
181
References
1
FWCI
10.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.310.6985.975
The paper
Grover, S. A., Lowensteyn, I., Esrey, K. L., Steinert, Y., Joseph, L., & Abrahamowicz, M. (1995). Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6985.975

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.