Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14687264›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2003

Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians.

Stacey Sheridan, Michael Pignone, Cynthia Mulrow

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. The Fremantle Primary Prevention Study: a multicentre randomised trial of absolute cardiovascular risk reduction.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stacey SheridanDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7110, USA. ssherida@email.unc.edu
Michael Pignone
Cynthia Mulrow

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the features of available Framingham-based risk calculation tools and review their accuracy and feasibility in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: medline, 1966-April 2003, and the google search engine on the Internet. TOOL AND STUDY SELECTION: We included risk calculation tools that used the Framingham risk equations to generate a global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. To determine tool accuracy, we reviewed all articles that compared the performance of various Framingham-based risk tools to that of the continuous Framingham risk equations. To determine the feasibility of tool use in clinical practice, we reviewed articles on the availability of the risk factor information required for risk calculation, subjective preference for 1 risk calculator over another, or subjective ease of use. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently reviewed the results of the literature search, all websites, and abstracted all articles for relevant information. DATA SYNTHESIS: Multiple CHD risk calculation tools are available, including risk charts and computerized calculators for personal digital assistants, personal computers, and web-based use. Most are easy to use and available without cost. They require information on age, smoking status, blood pressure, total and HDL cholesterol, and the presence or absence of diabetes. Compared to the full Framingham equations, accuracy for identifying patients at increased risk was generally quite high. Data on the feasibility of tool use was limited.

conclusionsSeveral easy-to-use tools are available for estimating patients' CHD risk. Use of such tools could facilitate better decision making about interventions for primary prevention of CHD, but further research about their actual effect on clinical practice and patient outcomes is required.

Indexed as

Coronary DiseaseHumansInternetMEDLINEPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID14687264
PMCPMC1494957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.