Skip to main content

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