Key result
Patients with a validated CHD diagnosis were significantly more likely to have recorded cholesterol <5.0 mmol/l (55.8% vs 34.5%, p<0.001) and receive secondary prevention drugs than unvalidated cases.
Why the study?
Does a validated diagnosis of CHD compared to a non-validated diagnosis improve the recording of risk factors and provision of secondary prevention drug treatments?
Cross-Sectional (n=727)
Yes
Does a validated diagnosis of CHD compared to a non-validated diagnosis improve the recording of risk factors and provision of secondary prevention drug treatments?
Absolute Event Rate: 55.8% vs 34.5%
p-value: p=< 0.001
Patients with a validated diagnosis of CHD are significantly more likely to receive appropriate secondary prevention therapies than those with an unconfirmed diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Validated CHD diagnoses associate with better risk recording and therapy; leaves open whether validation improves care or reflects documentation quality.
Connolly et al. (2002) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary heart disease (n=727). Validated diagnosis of CHD vs. Non-validated diagnosis of CHD was evaluated on Recorded cholesterol levels below 5.0 mmol/l (p=< 0.001). Patients with a validated CHD diagnosis were significantly more likely to have recorded cholesterol <5.0 mmol/l (55.8% vs 34.5%, p<0.001) and receive secondary prevention drugs than unvalidated cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: