• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

全科医生与心脏病专家对心血管疾病风险的认知差异以及心血管疾病预防性治疗的效果。

Differences in generalists' and cardiologists' perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease.

作者信息

Friedmann P D, Brett A S, Mayo-Smith M F

机构信息

Deaconess Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 1996 Feb 15;124(4):414-21. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-4-199602150-00005.

DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-124-4-199602150-00005
PMID:8554250
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare generalists' and cardiologists' estimates of baseline cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional mail survey using written case simulations of typical patients from primary prevention trials for hypercholesterolemia and isolated systolic hypertension, and tertiary prevention studies of coronary artery bypass surgery for chronic stable angina with left main coronary stenosis.

PARTICIPANTS

Nationally representative sample of 599 practicing family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists selected from the American Medical Association masterfile. Among eligible physicians, 84 (44%) of 191 family physicians, 77 (40%) of 194 general internists, and 66 (34%) of 194 cardiologists responded.

MEASUREMENTS

Estimates of risk at baseline and after therapy, and whether therapy generally would be recommended.

RESULTS

For both primary prevention case simulations (scenarios), cardiologists provided lower, more accurate estimates of baseline cardiovascular risk and of absolute therapeutic benefit than either family physicians or general internists. The range of the generalists' estimates was extremely wide. Perceptions of relative risk reduction and treatment recommendations for the primary prevention scenarios did not differ among specialties. Overall, generalists who would not recommend primary preventive therapy in these scenarios appeared to give more accurate estimates than did generalists who would recommend such therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Many generalists have inflated perceptions of cardiovascular risk without treatment and of the benefit of risk-modifying medical treatment. Further study should assess the reasons for these misperceptions and their effect on counseling about primary preventive therapy.

摘要

目的

比较全科医生和心脏病专家对基线心血管风险的评估以及预防性治疗的效果。

设计

采用横断面邮件调查,使用高胆固醇血症和单纯收缩期高血压一级预防试验中典型患者的书面病例模拟,以及慢性稳定型心绞痛伴左主干冠状动脉狭窄的冠状动脉搭桥手术三级预防研究。

参与者

从美国医学协会主文件中选取的599名执业家庭医生、普通内科医生和心脏病专家的全国代表性样本。在符合条件的医生中,191名家庭医生中有84名(44%)、194名普通内科医生中有77名(40%)、194名心脏病专家中有66名(34%)做出了回应。

测量

基线和治疗后的风险估计,以及是否通常会推荐治疗。

结果

对于这两种一级预防病例模拟(场景),心脏病专家对基线心血管风险和绝对治疗益处的估计比家庭医生或普通内科医生更低、更准确。全科医生的估计范围非常广泛。各专业对一级预防场景中相对风险降低的认知和治疗建议没有差异。总体而言,在这些场景中不推荐一级预防治疗的全科医生似乎比推荐这种治疗的全科医生给出的估计更准确。

结论

许多全科医生对未经治疗的心血管风险以及风险修正性药物治疗的益处存在夸大的认知。进一步的研究应评估这些误解的原因及其对一级预防治疗咨询的影响。

相似文献

1
Differences in generalists' and cardiologists' perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease.全科医生与心脏病专家对心血管疾病风险的认知差异以及心血管疾病预防性治疗的效果。
Ann Intern Med. 1996 Feb 15;124(4):414-21. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-4-199602150-00005.
2
Coronary risk estimates and decisions on lipid-lowering treatment in primary prevention: comparison between general practitioners, internists, and cardiologists.冠心病风险评估及降脂治疗决策:全科医生、内科医生和心脏病学家的比较。
Eur J Intern Med. 2009 Oct;20(6):601-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2009.04.002. Epub 2009 May 21.
3
Cholesterol testing and management: a national comparison of family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists.胆固醇检测与管理:家庭医生、普通内科医生和心脏病专家的全国性比较。
J Am Board Fam Pract. 1998 May-Jun;11(3):180-6. doi: 10.3122/15572625-11-3-180.
4
Patients' and cardiologists' perceptions of the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease.患者和心脏病专家对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗稳定型冠心病的获益的看法。
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Sep 7;153(5):307-13. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-5-201009070-00005.
5
Differences between patients with heart failure treated by cardiologists, internists, family physicians, and other physicians: analysis of a large, statewide database.心脏病专家、内科医生、家庭医生及其他医生治疗的心力衰竭患者之间的差异:一项基于全州范围大型数据库的分析
Am Heart J. 2000 Mar;139(3):491-6. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8703(00)90093-0.
6
Physicians' judgments of the risks of cardiac procedures. Differences between cardiologists and other internists.
Med Care. 1997 Jun;35(6):603-17. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199706000-00006.
7
[Cardiovascular risk profile and lifestyle habits in a cohort of Italian cardiologists. Results of the SOCRATES survey].[意大利心脏病专家队列中的心血管风险状况及生活习惯。苏格拉底调查结果]
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2013 Sep;80(3):118-25. doi: 10.4081/monaldi.2013.73.
8
Physicians' perception, knowledge and awareness of cardiovascular risk factors and adherence to prevention guidelines: the PERCRO-DOC survey.医生对心血管危险因素的认知、知识和意识,以及对预防指南的遵循情况:PERCRO-DOC 调查。
Atherosclerosis. 2010 Dec;213(2):598-603. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.09.014. Epub 2010 Oct 13.
9
Specialty preference for cardiovascular prevention practice in the Southeast US and role of a preventive cardiologist.美国东南部心血管预防实践的专业倾向及预防心脏病专家的作用。
Postgrad Med J. 2023 Dec 21;100(1179):42-49. doi: 10.1093/postmj/qgad082.
10
Specialist or generalist care? A study of the impact of a selective admitting policy for patients with cardiac failure.专科护理还是全科护理?一项关于心力衰竭患者选择性收治政策影响的研究。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2000 Aug;12(4):339-45. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/12.4.339.

引用本文的文献

1
Mismatch of corneal specialists' expectations and keratoconus knowledge in general ophthalmologists - a prospective observational study in Switzerland.角膜专家与普通眼科医生对圆锥角膜的认识存在差异 - 瑞士的一项前瞻性观察研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2021 May 25;21(1):297. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02738-0.
2
Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality in Adults Aged ≥60 Years According to Recommendations by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family Physicians.根据美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会和美国医师学院/美国家庭医师学会的建议,≥60 岁成年人的心血管疾病和死亡率。
Hypertension. 2019 Feb;73(2):327-334. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.12291.
3
Estimating everyday risk: Subjective judgments are related to objective risk, mapping of numerical magnitudes and previous experience.
估计日常风险:主观判断与客观风险、数值大小的映射以及先前的经验有关。
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 5;13(12):e0207356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207356. eCollection 2018.
4
PARS risk charts: A 10-year study of risk assessment for cardiovascular diseases in Eastern Mediterranean Region.PARS风险图表:东地中海区域心血管疾病风险评估的十年研究。
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 19;12(12):e0189389. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189389. eCollection 2017.
5
Statin Therapy Prescribing for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Current Evidence and Challenges.2型糖尿病患者的他汀类药物治疗处方:当前证据与挑战综述
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2017 Apr-Jun;9(2):80-87. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_30_17.
6
Using Predicted Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Conjunction With Blood Pressure to Guide Antihypertensive Medication Treatment.结合预测的心血管疾病风险与血压来指导抗高血压药物治疗。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May 16;69(19):2446-2456. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.066.
7
Do clinicians recommend aspirin to patients for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?临床医生会向患者推荐阿司匹林用于心血管疾病的一级预防吗?
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Feb;30(2):155-60. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2985-8.
8
Providing clinicians with a patient's 10-year cardiovascular risk improves their statin prescribing: a true experiment using clinical vignettes.为临床医生提供患者的 10 年心血管风险可改善其他汀类药物的开具情况:使用临床病例进行的真实验。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2013 Oct 22;13:90. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-13-90.
9
Subclinical cardiovascular disease assessment in persons with diabetes.糖尿病患者的亚临床心血管疾病评估。
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2013 May;15(5):358. doi: 10.1007/s11886-013-0358-2.
10
Family practice patients' use of acetylsalicylic acid for cardiovascular disease prevention.家庭实践患者使用乙酰水杨酸预防心血管疾病。
Can Fam Physician. 2013 Jan;59(1):55-61.