ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2001
Comparative accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction methods in primary care patients.
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Prevention of cardiovascular diseases: focus on modifiable cardiovascular risk.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2006Trial
- 3D Convolutional Neural Network for Predicting Clinical Outcome from Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular event risk estimation among residents of a rural setting in Bayelsa state, Nigeria.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2021Article
- Greater ability to express positive emotion is associated with lower projected cardiovascular disease risk.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2017Article
- Diabetes prevention among American Indians: the role of self-efficacy, risk perception, numeracy and cultural identity.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Need for better blood pressure measurement in developing countries to improve prevention of cardiovascular disease.Journal of epidemiology · 2015Review
- Assessment of total cardiovascular risk using WHO/ISH risk prediction charts in three low and middle income countries in Asia.BMC public health · 2013Article
- [Effectiveness of an intervention to improve quality care in reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertense patients].Atencion primaria · 2006Article
- Implementation of a pharmacist-led clinic for hypertensive patients in primary care--a pilot study.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2005Article
- [Comparison of international recommendations for the recognition of asymptomatic high risk patients for a heart attack in Germany].Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie · 2005Article
- Comparative evaluation of the new Sheffield table and the modified joint British societies coronary risk prediction chart against a laboratory based risk score calculation.Postgraduate medical journal · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the relative accuracy of cardiovascular disease risk prediction methods based on equations derived from the Framingham heart study.
designRisk factor data were collected prospectively from subjects being evaluated by their primary care physicians for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Projected cardiovascular risks were calculated for each patient with the Framingham equations, and also estimated from the risk tables and charts based on the same equations.
setting12 primary care practices (46 doctors) in Birmingham. PATIENTS: 691 subjects aged 30-70 years.
main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Framingham based risk tables and charts for treatment thresholds based on projected cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease risk.
results59 subjects (8.5%) had projected 10 year coronary heart disease risks >/= 30%, and 291 (42.1%) had risks >/= 15%. At equivalent projected risk levels (10 year coronary heart disease >/= 30% and five year cardiovascular disease >/= 20%), the original Sheffield tables and those from New Zealand have the same sensitivities (40.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 26.6% to 57.8% v 41.2%, 95% CI 28.7% to 57. 3%) and specificities (98.6%, 95% CI 97.2% to 99.3% v 99.7%, 95% CI 98.8% to 100%). Modifications to the Sheffield tables improve sensitivity (91.4%, 95% CI 81.3% to 96.9%) but reduce specificity (95.8%, 95% CI 93.9% to 97.3%). The revised joint British recommendations' charts have high specificity (98.7%, 95% CI 97.5% to 99.5%) and good sensitivity (84.7%, 95% CI 71.0% to 93.0%).
conclusionsThe revised joint British recommendations charts appear to have the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for use in primary care patients.
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.