ArticleAtencion primaria2005
[Variability in the calculation of coronary risk in type-2 diabetes mellitus].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research inefficiencies in external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease risk rule: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Cardiovascular risk assessment scores for people with diabetes: a systematic review.Diabetologia · 2009Pooled it
- Comparison of different vascular risk engines in the identification of type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2015Article
- Family physician and endocrinologist coordination as the basis for diabetes care in clinical practice.BMC endocrine disorders · 2008Article
- Assessing Framingham cardiovascular risk scores in subjects with diabetes and their correlation with diabetic retinopathy.Indian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the concordance and predictive capacity of various methods for calculating coronary risk in diabetic patients.
designProspective study of cohorts, with a 10-year follow-up.
settingUrban health centre in a socially depressed area, with high prevalence of DM2.
participantsPopulation diagnosed with type-2 diabetes mellitus in 1991-93 (112 individuals, with an average age of 66.7+/-11.6 years, 59% of whom were male). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: At the moment of diagnosis, the parameters normally used to calculate coronary risk were determined. The tables of the Framingham scale '91 and '98, of the United Kingdom Prospective Study (UKPDS) (based on an exclusively diabetic population) and of the REgistre GIroni del COr (REGICOR-Girona Heart Register) (based on a Mediterranean population) were each used to calculate individually coronary risk at 10 years. The coronary events suffered in the 10 years following DM2 diagnosis were recorded. The Kappa indices for concordance of the tables and their predictive capacity were calculated.
results18.2% of men and 15.2% of women suffered some coronary event. The coronary risk calculations were, for men and women, 30%-20% (Framingham '91), 36%-21% (Framingham '98), 38%-23% (UKPDS), and 15%-10% (REGICOR).
conclusionsThe various methods for calculating coronary risk in diabetics suffer large variability. We should highlight their low diagnostic value in individual cases, with sensitivities of 25%-75% and low specificity (mainly in men) regarding real risk of coronary disease.
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.