ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2007
A coronary heart disease risk score based on patient-reported information.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Research inefficiencies in external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease risk rule: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Performance of the Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2019Pooled it
- The effect of Nigella sativa supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors in obese and overweight women: a crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.European journal of nutrition · 2021Trial
- Trial
- The effect of different cardiovascular risk presentation formats on intentions, understanding and emotional affect: a randomised controlled trial using a web-based risk formatter (protocol).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2010Trial
- Personalized Treatment of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: The Value and Limitations of Predictive Models.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Evidence supporting the choice of a new cardiovascular risk equation for Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Review
- Association of metabolic comorbidity with myocardial infarction in individuals with a family history of cardiovascular disease: a prospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models and Scores in the Era of Personalized Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2022Article
- Novel Self-Report Tool for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
- A risk score assessment tool for peripheral arterial disease in women: From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Clinical cardiology · 2018Article
- Cardiovascular medication changes over 5 years in a national data linkage study: implications for risk prediction models.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Self-Reported Stroke Risk Stratification: Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke Study.Stroke · 2017Article
- GDF-15 plasma levels in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are associated with subclinical coronary artery disease.Respiratory research · 2017Observational
- Neural Network-Based Coronary Heart Disease Risk Prediction Using Feature Correlation Analysis.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2017Article
- Cardiovascular risk prediction: a comparative study of Framingham and quantum neural network based approach.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
- The influence of socioeconomic status on future risk for developing Type 2 diabetes in the Canadian population between 2011 and 2022: differential associations by sex.International journal for equity in health · 2015Article
- Cardiovascular risk assessment: a global perspective.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2015 · on this mapReview
- CT-based attenuation correction in Tl-201 myocardial perfusion scintigraphy is less effective than non-corrected SPECT for risk stratification.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2014Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
To develop a simple, patient self-report-based coronary heart disease (CHD) risk score for adults without previously diagnosed CHD (Personal Heart Early Assessment Risk Tool [HEART] score), the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) Study, a prospective cohort of subjects aged 45 to 64 years at baseline, was used to develop a measure for 10-year risk of CHD (n = 14,343). Variables evaluated for inclusion were age, history of diabetes mellitus, history of hypercholesterolemia, history of hypertension, family history of CHD, smoking, physical activity, and body mass index. The 10-year risk of CHD events was defined as myocardial infarction, fatal CHD, or cardiac procedure. The new measure was compared with the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE). The Personal HEART score for men included age, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, physical activity, and family history. In men, the area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve for predicting 10-year CHD for the Personal HEART score (0.65) was significantly different from that for the FRS (0.69, p = 0.03), but not for the European SCORE (0.62, p = 0.12). The Personal HEART score for women included age, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, and body mass index. The area under the curve for the Personal HEART score (0.79) for women was not significantly different from that for the FRS (0.81, p = 0.42) and performed better than the European SCORE (0.69, p = 0.01). In conclusion, the Personal HEART score identifies 10-year risk for CHD based on self-report data, is similar in predictive ability to the FRS and European SCORE, and has the potential for easy self-assessment.
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.