Geological tests of hypotheses for large coastwise displacements; a critique illustrated by the Baja British Columbia controversy

Clicks: 1
ID: 292861
1997
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #4,453 of 8,486 articles by views in american journal of science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 8,486 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Objective To assess the reporting of monitoring recommendations in guidelines on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Data sources Medline, Trip database, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and databases containing guidelines published from January 2002 to February 2010. Data selection Three major risk factors for cardiovascular disease: cholesterol level, smoking, and hypertension. The primary outcome was the frequency with which the guidelines dealt with monitoring of risk factors. Secondary outcomes were completeness of monitoring recommendations, defined by the presence of what to monitor, when to monitor, what to do if the targets or variables were not met, and the reported level or strength of the evidence. Results 117 guidelines were identified, 84 (72%) of which contained a section on lipids. Of those guidelines with a section on lipids, 53% (n=44) provided no information or specific recommendations on what to monitor, 51% (n=43) provided no information on when to monitor, and 64% (n=54) provided no guidance on what to do if the target was out of range. Guidelines for hypertension (n=79) and smoking (n=65) were little better, with 63% (n=50) and 54% (n=35), respectively, providing no recommendation for what to monitor. The number of guidelines that explicitly referenced the level of evidence for monitoring was low, with most of the recommendations based on weak levels of evidence. Conclusion Many guidelines for cardiovascular disease do not report clearly what to monitor and what to do if a change is detected. If no evidence is available to support a specific monitoring schedule, this should be explicit in the guideline, with a description of the new research that would fill the gap.
Reference Key
openalex_W2320796510 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Darrel S. Cowan, M. T. Brandon, John I. Garver
Journal american journal of science
Year 1997
DOI
10.2475/ajs.297.2.117
URL
https://ajs.scholasticahq.com/article/60760.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.