Key result
Both GPs and medical students underestimate 10-year coronary risk, though GPs rank cases more accurately.
Why the study?
How accurately do general practitioners and medical students estimate the 10-year risk of coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients compared to established risk equations?
Cross-Sectional (n=141)
How accurately do general practitioners and medical students estimate the 10-year risk of coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients compared to established risk equations?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.79% vs 0.68%
p-value: p=0.022
General practitioners and medical students significantly underestimate coronary risk in hypercholesterolaemic patients, highlighting the need for objective decision support tools.
Subjective risk estimates warrant objective verification before decisions; Level 4 data leaves open effects on hypercholesterolemia management.
Recent guidelines on hyperlipidaemia recommend the calculation of individual coronary risk, at least for patients without previous cardiovascular disease. Although tables and computer programs exist, the estimates are often made on an intuitive basis. The aim of the present work was to study Swedish general practitioners’ (GPs) and medical students’ ability to estimate the 10-year risk of coronary events for hypercholesterolaemic patients. Two hundred randomly selected Swedish GPs and 73 medical students in their final year of medical school were asked to estimate coronary risk for 10 written case descriptions with different cholesterol levels (at least 5.5 mmol/l) and combinations of other risk factors. Both primary and secondary prevention cases were represented. The risk estimates were compared with the estimates from the Framingham equation and a Swedish equation. The interindividual differences in estimated risk were remarkable for both GPs and students. Both GPs and students underestimated coronary risk, especially for high-risk patients. GPs tended to be more accurate than students in ranking the cases. Cases with previous coronary heart disease were not recommended treatment to the extent that the guidelines recommend. Both GPs and students were quite accurate in estimating absolute risk increase attributable to successive cholesterol increases in a scenario with other risk factors kept constant. It was concluded that GPs and medical students need help to differentiate more accurately between patients at high and low coronary risk, and greater effort should be made to communicate the advantages and difficulties involved in multiple risk assessment. The requirements for decision support are discussed. More evidence is needed on the validity of the Framingham equation for new population samples.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bäcklund et al. (2004) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypercholesterolaemia (n=141). General practitioners vs. Medical students was evaluated on Median rank correlation between subjective risk estimates and Swedish equation predictions (p=0.022). Both general practitioners and medical students underestimated 10-year coronary risk, although GPs were more accurate than students in ranking the cases (median rank correlation 0.79 vs 0.68, p=0.022).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: