Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Summary of findings table for educational interventions

From: Interventions to improve adherence to cardiovascular disease guidelines: a systematic review

Education compared to control for improving adherence to cardiovascular disease guidelines
Patient or population: patients with improving adherence to cardiovascular disease guidelines
Settings:
Intervention: Education
Comparison: control
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risksa (95 % CI) Relative effect No of participants Quality of the evidence Comments
  Assumed risk control Corresponding risk Education (95 % CI) (studies) (GRADE)  
Mortality Study population OR 0.54 2190  
Follow-up: median 6 months 40 per 1000 22 per 1000 (0.2 to 1.42) (3 studies) moderatec
(8 to 56)
Moderate
26 per 1000 14 per 1000
(5 to 37)b
Disease Targets   The mean disease targets in the intervention groups was0.32 standard deviations lower   2145 SMD −0.32 (−0.71 to 0.07)
Follow-up: 3–6 months (6 studies) very lowc,e,f
(0.71 lower to 0.07 higher)
Adherence   The mean adherence in the intervention groups was 0.58 standard deviations higher   322 SMD 0.58 (0.35 to 0.8)
Follow-up: 6–24 months (4 studies) high
(0.35 to 0.8 higher)
Mortality Study population OR 0.48 355  
Follow-up: 7 months - 10 years 182 per 1000 96 per 1000 (0.11 to 1.98) (4 studies) lowg
(24 to 306)
Moderate
146 per 1000 76 per 1000
(18 to 253)b
Hospitalizations Study population OR 0.88 979  
Follow-up: 7–22 months 188 per 1000 170 per 1000 (0.54 to 1.41) (4 studies) high
(111 to 246)
Moderate
191 per 1000 172 per 1000
(113 to 250)b
Disease Targets   The mean disease targets in the intervention groups was 0.09 standard deviations lower   2732 SMD −0.09 (−0.24 to 0.07)
Follow-up: 7–27 months   (5 studies) lowf,h
(0.24 lower to 0.07 higher)
Adherence Study population OR 1.05 6019  
Follow-up: 7–27 months 609 per 1000 620 per 1000 (0.82 to 1.34) (8 studies) lowc,i
(561 to 676)
Moderate
236 per 1000 245 per 1000
(202 to 293)b
Adherence Study population OR 2.36 2145  
Follow-up: median 6 months 288 per 1000 489 per 1000 (0.86 to 6.51) (5 studies) very lowc,j,k
(258 to 725)
Moderate
326 per 1000 533 per 1000
(294 to 759)b
  1. aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95 % confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95 % CI)
  2. CI Confidence interval, OR Odds ratio
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  4. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  5. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  6. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  7. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  8. bAssumed Risk is based on the default calculation within GRADEpro (mean control group risk, and median control group risk)
  9. cAssessment based on three studies thus precision cannot be accurately determined
  10. dSeveral included studies had 3 or more high risk of bias assessments
  11. eStatistical heterogeneity I2 = 94 %
  12. fDisease targets are an indirect estimate of patient important outcomes
  13. gStatistical heterogeneity I2 = 70 %
  14. hStatistical heterogeneity I2 = 41 %
  15. iStatistical heterogeneity I2 = 60 %
  16. jStatistical heterogeneity I2 = 95 %
  17. kOverall estimate has large range for 95 % confidence interval