ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000
Coronary and cardiovascular risk estimation for primary prevention: validation of a new Sheffield table in the 1995 Scottish health survey population.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2003Pooled it
- Aspirin for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: safety and absolute benefit related to coronary risk derived from meta-analysis of randomised trials.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2001Pooled it
- Trial
- Doxazosin versus bendrofluazide: a comparison of the metabolic effects in British South Asians with hypertension.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Trial
- Individualised multifactorial lifestyle intervention trial for high-risk cardiovascular patients in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001Trial
- Bempedoic Acid: A Contemporary Review of Its Pharmacology, Efficacy, and Safety Profile, Including Recent Data from the CLEAR Outcomes Clinical Trial.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Japan.Japanese clinical medicine · 2017Review
- Article
- Predicting melanoma risk: theory, practice and future challenges.Melanoma management · 2014Review
- Novel gene-by-environment interactions: APOB and NPC1L1 variants affect the relationship between dietary and total plasma cholesterol.Journal of lipid research · 2013Article
- The influence of hip circumference on the relationship between abdominal obesity and mortality.International journal of epidemiology · 2012Article
- Implementation of a pharmacist-led clinic for hypertensive patients in primary care--a pilot study.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2005Article
- Challenges of teaching EBM.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2005Article
- High prevalence and undertreatment of hypercholesterolaemia in participants in a public stroke prevention programme in austria.Clinical drug investigation · 2005Article
- Clustering of risk factors and social class in childhood and adulthood in British women's heart and health study: cross sectional analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
- Should pulse pressure become part of the Framingham risk score?Journal of human hypertension · 2004Article
- Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- An adaptation of the Framingham coronary heart disease risk function to European Mediterranean areas.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2003Article
- Comparison of methods to identify individuals at increased risk of coronary disease from the general population.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- [Is there a relationship between the assessment of coronary risk on the Framingham and Sheffield tables and the sixth report of the Joint National Committee? Relationship between tables of coronary risk].Atencion primaria · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the accuracy of a new version of the Sheffield table designed to aid decisions on lipids screening and detect thresholds for risk of coronary heart disease needed to implement current guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
designComparison of decisions made on the basis of the table with absolute risk of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease calculated by the Framingham risk function. The decisions related to statin treatment when coronary risk is >/=30% over 10 years; aspirin treatment when the risk is >/=15% over 10 years; and the treatment of mild hypertension when the cardiovascular risk is >/=20% over 10 years.
settingThe table is designed for use in general practice. SUBJECTS: Random sample of 1000 people aged 35-64 years from the 1995 Scottish health survey.
main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the table.
results13% of people had a coronary risk of >/=15%, and 2. 2% a risk of >/=30%, over 10 years. 22% had mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure 140-159 mm Hg). The table indicated lipids screening for everyone with a coronary risk of >/=15% over 10 years, for 95% of people with a ratio of total cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol of >/=8.0, but for <50% with a coronary risk of <5% over 10 years. Sensitivity and specificity were 97% and 95% respectively for a coronary risk of >/=15% over 10 years; 82% and 99% for a coronary risk of >/=30% over 10 years; and 88% and 90% for a cardiovascular risk of >/=20% over 10 years in mild hypertension.
conclusionThe table identifies all high risk people for lipids screening, reduces screening of low risk people by more than half, and ensures that treatments are prescribed appropriately to those at high risk, while avoiding inappropriate treatment of people at low risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.