Skip to main content
. 2006 Apr 18;92(12):1752–1759. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2006.087932

Table 3 Controlled trials examining the effectiveness of using a risk score to aid primary prevention of CVD.

Study and participants Intervention Results* Study quality
Outcome† Intervention (95% CI/SD) Control (95% CI/SD)
Hall et al32: Hospital outpatients with type 2 diabetes, age 35–75, 52% men CVD risk score documented at front of patient notes All patients n = 162 n = 161 Alternate allocation of participants
 Diabetes treatment 42% (34 to 50) 36% ( 29 to 45) Doctors were unaware of allocation
 Hypertension treatment 16% (10 to 22) 10% ( 5 to 16) Length of follow up, losses to follow up unreported
 Lipid‐lowering treatment 12% (7 to 17) 9% (4 to 14)
 Referral to dietician 10% (6 to 15) 13% (7 to 19) No power calculation
High‐risk patients (>20% 5‐year risk) n = 86 n = 82
 Diabetes treatment 44% (35 to 54) 35% (24 to 47)
 Hypertension treatment 23% (15 to 31) 10% (3 to 17)
 Lipid‐lowering treatment 20% (12 to 27) 9% (2 to 15)
 Referral to dietician 10% (5 to 16) 7% (1 to 17)
Montgomery et al29: General practice patients with hypertension, age 60–80, 46% men 1. Computer‐based CDSS and risk chart n = 202 n = 130 Cluster randomisation of general practices
Change in mean 5‐year risk ⩾10% 0.65 (0.39) 0.77 (0.37) Participants not blinded to study group
Change in SBP (mm Hg) −0.04 (1.4) 0.25 (1.7)‡ Losses to follow up were 10% at 6 months and 14% at 12 months
Change in DBP (mm Hg) 0.36 (0.74) −1.64 (1.03)‡
OR§ for taking 2 classes of drugs v 0 or 1 0.5 (0.2 to 0.9) 0.5 (0.2 to 1.0) Power calculation using intracluster correlation coefficient from a published study
OR for taking ⩾3 classes of drugs v 0 or 1 0.3 (0.1 to 0.6) 0.3 (0.2 to 0.7)
2. Chart only, interventions by GP or practice nurse. 6 and 12 month follow up n = 199
Change in mean 5‐year risk ⩾10% −0.48 (0.35)
Change in SBP (mm Hg) 2.66 (1.4)
Change in DBP (mm Hg) −1.1 (0.78)
OR§ for taking 2 classes of drugs v 0 or 1 1.0
OR for taking ⩾3 classes of drugs v 0 or 1 1.0
Hanon et al31” Patients with hypertension, age 19–74, 54% men 10‐year CVD risk communicated to GP as <15%, 15–20%, 20–30%, >30%. Controls had CVD risk estimated by physician. 8 week follow up n = 556 n = 712
Framingham Anderson 1991 10‐year CVD risk 26 (12) 25 (12) Individual randomisation
Physicians not blind to intervention
Change in SBP (mm Hg) −27 −26 No information on assessor blinding
Change in DBP (mm Hg) −15 −16 17% lost to follow up
Patients with BP <140/90 mm Hg 64% 62% No power calculation
Patients taking 2 hypertension drugs rather than 1 41% 46% No confidence intervals reported
Hetlevik et al30: General practice patients with hypertension, age range not reported, 42% men Computer‐based CDSS incorporating Westlund MI risk score Change in SBP (mm Hg) −2.3 (n = 816) 0.8 (n = 1023) Cluster randomisation of health centres
Change in DBP (mm Hg) −1.8 (n = 816) −1.2 (n = 1023) 56/213 (26%) of invited GPs were randomly assigned
Change in serum TC (mmol/l) 0.04 (n = 581) −0.13 (n = 768) Unblinded
Uptake of computerised CDSS was only 12% in intervention group
Some risk score variables were missing for >91% of participant
No power calculation
No confidence intervals reported

*Results for Montgomery et al unadjusted for baseline blood pressure (BP) and practice computer system.

†Change in numbers of patients receiving treatment or being referred to dietician.

‡Mantel–Haenszel p<0.02.

§Odds ratio (OR) <1 indicates less likely to take >1 class of drug.

CDSS, clinical decision support system; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; GP, general practitioner; MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; TC, total cholesterol.