Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Primary Care: A Comment on the PEER Simplified Lipid Guideline
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundThere are 2 guidelines in Canada providing guidance for the management of dyslipidemia. The Patients Experience Evidence Research (PEER) simplified lipid guidelines, intended for primary care practitioners, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines, intended for all practitioners are based on differing methodology with distinct priorities and preferences. The disparate approaches may contribute to confusion among family practitioners and their co-managed patients with the potential for compromised care, differing standards for training in the fundamentals of lipidology and differing criteria that might be used in practice audits to evaluate quality of care.MethodsThe PEER recommendations were considered by primary authors of the CCS guideline to identify areas of concordance, discordance or agreement with qualifications.ResultsDiscordance between the guidelines is greatest with respect to interpretation of the cholesterol profile, the implications of elevated triglycerides, the utility of apolipoprotein B and non-High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol measurements, the role of non-statin medications and the importance of assuring adherence and avoiding under-treatment through follow-up measurement of lipid profiles. The disparate importance attached to identifications of patients with enhanced risk due to elevated lipoprotein (a) is also apparent.ConclusionsThis comparison attempts to reconcile key principles of practice in order to foster both high quality of care and fully informed patient-centered decision-making. There are 2 guidelines in Canada providing guidance for the management of dyslipidemia. The Patients Experience Evidence Research (PEER) simplified lipid guidelines, intended for primary care practitioners, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines, intended for all practitioners are based on differing methodology with distinct priorities and preferences. The disparate approaches may contribute to confusion among family practitioners and their co-managed patients with the potential for compromised care, differing standards for training in the fundamentals of lipidology and differing criteria that might be used in practice audits to evaluate quality of care. The PEER recommendations were considered by primary authors of the CCS guideline to identify areas of concordance, discordance or agreement with qualifications. Discordance between the guidelines is greatest with respect to interpretation of the cholesterol profile, the implications of elevated triglycerides, the utility of apolipoprotein B and non-High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol measurements, the role of non-statin medications and the importance of assuring adherence and avoiding under-treatment through follow-up measurement of lipid profiles. The disparate importance attached to identifications of patients with enhanced risk due to elevated lipoprotein (a) is also apparent. This comparison attempts to reconcile key principles of practice in order to foster both high quality of care and fully informed patient-centered decision-making.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».