Key result
Multifactorial risk reduction fails to significantly improve cardiovascular risk factors or mortality.
Why the study?
The three U.S. community-based heart disease prevention trials individually lacked sufficient sample size and power to delineate common intervention effects.
Meta-Analysis
Yes
Does not support practice change; hypothesis-generating for gender-specific risk reduction, needing prospective trials.
During the 1980s three comprehensive community-based heart disease prevention trials were conducted in the United States. The Stanford Five-City Project, Minnesota Heart Health Program, and Pawtucket Heart Health Program involved 12 cities; six received a 5-8 year multifactorial risk reduction program. This analysis pools data from the three studies to delineate the common intervention effects with greater sample size and power than could be attained by the single studies. Time trends were estimated for cigarette smoking, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index, and coronary heart disease mortality risk in women and men aged 25-64 years. The joint estimates of intervention effect were in the expected direction in nine of 12 gender-specific comparisons; however, these were not statistically significant. The results illustrate the analytic challenges of evaluating community-based prevention trials and point to the smaller than expected net differences, rather than small sample size, as the reason for few statistically significant effects in the three U.S. prevention trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Winkleby et al. (1997) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiovascular disease risk. Multifactorial risk reduction program vs. Control cities was evaluated on Cigarette smoking, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index, and coronary heart disease mortality risk. A 5-8 year multifactorial risk reduction program yielded changes in the expected direction in 9 of 12 gender-specific cardiovascular risk comparisons, but these were not statistically significant.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: