Prevention & lipidsMeta-analysis
Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
Paired reviewers independently screened records and extracted data; disagreements resolved by a third author
Authors' conclusion
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, communicating CVD risk information, regardless of the method, reduced the overall risk factors and enhanced patients' self-perceived risk.
Study context
- Population
- Patients or clinicians in randomised trials of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication62 trials
- Comparison
- CVD risk communication vs usual care
- Outcome
- Accuracy of risk perception
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Accuracy of risk perception higher among intervention participants (vs usual care)
odds ratio = 2.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.63 to 3.27
Further pooled results
| Outcome | mean difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall CVD risk scores · 6-12 months | −0.27 (−0.45 to −0.09) | |
| −0.6−0.4−0.200.2Difference (linear scale) |
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Self-reported dietary modification (primary prevention) | 1.50 (1.21–1.86) | |
| 0.512Odds ratio (log scale) |
Smoking cessation and physical activity (primary prevention)
- No increase in intention or actual changes in smoking cessation or physical activity
Intention to start preventive medication
- Significant impact on intention for primary and secondary prevention, with changes at follow-up for primary prevention
Original publication
Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. Published 19 January 2024. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae002
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it