Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aggressive Versus Moderate Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Hypercholesterolemic Postmenopausal Women: Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering With EBT Scanning (BELLES)

Raggi, Paolo, Davidson, Michael, Callister, Tracy Q., Welty, Francine K., Bachmann, Gloria A., Hecht, Harvey, Rumberger, John A.·2005·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Women have been underrepresented in statin trials, and few data exist on the effectiveness and safety of statins in this gender. We used sequential electron-beam tomography (EBT) scanning to quantify changes in coronary artery calcium (CAC) as a measure of atherosclerosis burden in patients treated with statins. Methods and Results— In a double-blind, multicenter trial, we randomized 615 hyperlipidemic, postmenopausal women to intensive (atorvastatin 80 mg/d) and moderate (pravastatin 40 mg/d) lipid-lowering therapy. Patients also submitted to 2 EBT scans at a 12-month interval (mean interval 344±55 days) to measure percent change in total and single-artery calcium volume score (CVS) from baseline. Of the 615 randomized women, 475 completed the study. Mean±SD percent LDL reductions were 46.6%±19.9% and 24.5%±18.5 in the intensive and moderate treatment arms, respectively ( P <0.0001), and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL goal was reached in 85.3% and 58.8% of women, respectively ( P <0.0001). The total CVS% change was similar in the 2 treatment groups (median 15.1% and 14.3%, respectively; P =NS), and single-artery CVS% changes and absolute changes were also similar ( P =NS). In both arms, there was a trend toward a greater CVS progression in patients with prior cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, whereas hormone replacement therapy had no effect on progression. Conclusions— In postmenopausal women, intensive statin therapy for 1 year caused a greater LDL reduction than moderate therapy but did not result in less progression of coronary calcification. The limitations of this study (too short a follow-up period and the absence of a placebo group) precluded determination of whether progression of CVS was slowed in both arms or neither arm compared with the natural history of the disease.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.104.512681

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Raggi, P., Davidson, M., Callister, T. Q., Welty, F. K., Bachmann, G. A., Hecht, H., & Rumberger, J. A.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2005-07-26
Volume
112
Issue
4
Pages
563-571
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2069557124
Cited by
271
References
5
FWCI
22.65
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aggressive Versus Moderate Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Hypercholesterolemic Postmenopausal Women: Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering With EBT Scanning (BELLES). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.104.512681
The paper
Raggi, P., Davidson, M., Callister, T. Q., Welty, F. K., Bachmann, G. A., Hecht, H., & Rumberger, J. A. (2005). Aggressive Versus Moderate Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Hypercholesterolemic Postmenopausal Women: Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering With EBT Scanning (BELLES). Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.104.512681

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.