Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 832

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

National service framework for coronary heart disease

Open access
Lloyd-Mostyn, R.·2000·BMJ

Abstract

Editor—One of the priorities in the national service framework for coronary heart disease summarised by Mayor1 was “improved use of effective medicines after heart attack—especially aspirin, β blockers, and statins—so that 80-90% of people discharged from hospital after a heart attack will be prescribed these drugs.” This is the recommendation in the executive summary, which taken at face value implies that all three drugs should be prescribed before a patient leaves hospital. In contrast, the recommendation in the main document is that aspirin and β blocker treatment should be started in hospital and statin treatment left for “continuing care.” Statin treatment was not started at the time of infarction in any of the large secondary prevention studies. The shortest times from infarction to inclusion were six months in the Scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S),2 and three months in the cholesterol and recurrent events (CARE) study3 and the long term intervention with pravastatin in ischaemic disease (LIPID) study.4 Thus the common practice of starting treatment before discharge is not strictly evidence based and statin treatment may be harmful immediately after myocardial infarction. Starting treatment before discharge, however, ensures that the drug is prescribed and simplifies audit. A further recommendation in the main document is “give statins to lower serum cholesterol concentrations either to less than 5 mmol/l (low density lipoprotein cholesterol below 3 mmol/l) or by 30% (whichever is greater).” I find this ambiguous because a percentage change cannot be compared to a concentration, but I presume that the intention is to exclude from treatment those with a total cholesterol concentration under 5 mmol/l on admission. An audit of my own patients with myocardial infarction showed that statin treatment was not appropriate in 22% for this reason. The main document states that patients with acute myocardial infarction should usually receive the recommended interventions unless contraindicated. Surely all patients without intolerance or contradindications should receive aspirin and β blockers. Similarly, all patients with a total cholesterol concentration greater than or equal to 5 mmol/l should be treated with a statin, but they may number less than 80% of the total. Whether the 80-90% standard above applies to all patients or to those without contraindications is not clear. These ambiguities need to be clarified or the results of comparative audit will be meaningless. The criteria for audit should be as rigorous as those for clinical trials.

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.321.7261.634

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

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 6 references

Cited by

See all 832

Metadata

Authors
Lloyd-Mostyn, R.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-09-09
Volume
321
Issue
7261
Pages
634-634
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W196531891
Cited by
832
References
6
FWCI
86.38
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: National service framework for coronary heart disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.321.7261.634
The paper
Lloyd-Mostyn, R. (2000). National service framework for coronary heart disease. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7261.634

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.