Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16621883›Full record

SynthesisHeart (British Cardiac Society)2006

Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

P Brindle, A Beswick, T Fahey, S Ebrahim

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03170752 (Implementing and Testing a Cardiovascular Assessment Screening Program to Promote Healthy Aging), which is not on this map. Cited by 143 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
25.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT03170752 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Implementing and Testing a Cardiovascular Assessment Screening Program to Promote Healthy Aging (CASP)

TypeinterventionalSponsorMemorial University of NewfoundlandRan2017 to 2018Enrolled169ConditionsCardiovascular Risk Factor, Smoking, Diabetes Mellitus, DyslipidemiasArmsCardiovascular Assessment Screening Program (CASP)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

143 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 454 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of the status and methodological considerations for estimating risk of first ever stroke in the general population.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P BrindleDepartment of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK. peter.brindle@nhs.net
A Beswick
T Fahey
S Ebrahim
University of Bristol · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Dundee · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the accuracy of assessing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in the primary prevention of CVD and its impact on clinical outcomes.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Published studies retrieved from Medline and other databases. Reference lists of identified articles were inspected for further relevant articles. SELECTION OF STUDIES: Any study that compared the predicted risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) or CVD, with observed 10-year risk based on the widely recommended Framingham methods (review A). Randomised controlled trials examining the effect on clinical outcomes of a healthcare professional assigning a cardiovascular risk score to people predominantly without CVD (review B). REVIEW

methodsData were extracted on the ratio of the predicted to the observed 10-year risk of CVD and CHD (review A), and on cardiovascular or coronary fatal or non-fatal events, risk factor levels, absolute cardiovascular or coronary risk, prescription of risk-reducing drugs and changes in health-related behaviour (review B).

results27 studies with data from 71,727 participants on predicted and observed risk for either CHD or CVD were identified. For CHD, the predicted to observed ratios ranged from an underprediction of 0.43 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.67) in a high-risk population to an overprediction of 2.87 (95% CI 1.91 to 4.31) in a lower-risk population. In review B, four randomised controlled trials confined to people with hypertension or diabetes found no strong evidence that a cardiovascular risk assessment performed by a clinician improves health outcomes.

conclusionThe performance of the Framingham risk scores varies considerably between populations and evidence supporting the use of cardiovascular risk scores for primary prevention is scarce.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID16621883
PMCPMC1861278
OpenAlexW1964347831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.