ArticleDiabetes care2009
Performance of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Risk Engine and the Framingham Risk Equations in Estimating Cardiovascular Disease in the EPIC- Norfolk Cohort.
Article in Diabetes care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiovascular risk assessment scores for people with diabetes: a systematic review.Diabetologia · 2009Pooled it
- Delivering Diabetes Education through Nurse-Led Telecoaching. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Cardiovascular risk reduction following diagnosis of diabetes by screening: 1-year results from the ADDITION-Cambridge trial cohort.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012Trial
- Trial
- Diabetic retinopathy and diabetic kidney disease, either isolated or associated, impact on the 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: are we dealing with similar conditions?Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Precision prognostics for cardiovascular disease in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- External validation of the UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) risk engine in patients with type 2 diabetes identified in the national diabetes program in Iran.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2023Article
- Evidence supporting the choice of a new cardiovascular risk equation for Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Review
- Associations of Chronic Diabetes Complications and Cardiovascular Risk with the Risk of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Field of Diabetology.International journal of chronic diseases · 2021Review
- Is a COVID-19 Vaccine Likely to Make Things Worse?Vaccines · 2020Article
- Identification of Plasma Inositol and Indoxyl Sulfate as Novel Biomarker Candidates for Atherosclerosis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. -Findings from Metabolome Analysis Using GC/MS.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2020Article
- Association between unrealistic comparative optimism and self-management in individuals with type 2 diabetes: Results from a cross-sectional, population-based study.Health science reports · 2020Article
- Current Data Regarding the Relationship between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Risk Factors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Association between IL-1beta and cardiovascular disease risk in patients with newly diagnosed, drug-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Modelling the daily risk of Ebola in the presence and absence of a potential vaccine.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2020Article
- Body Composition Indices and Cardiovascular Risk in Type 2 Diabetes. CV Biomarkers are not Related to Body Composition.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2020Article
- Performance of the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 for Predicting Death and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus from a German Population-Based Cohort.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetes: a Review of the Evidence.Current diabetes reports · 2019Review
- Clinical utility of carotid ultrasonography: Application for the management of patients with diabetes.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2019Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine (version 3) and the Framingham risk equations (2008) in estimating cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence in three populations: 1) individuals with known diabetes; 2) individuals with nondiabetic hyperglycemia, defined as A1C >or=6.0%; and 3) individuals with normoglycemia defined as A1C <6.0%. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsThis was a population-based prospective cohort (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk). Participants aged 40-79 years recruited from U.K. general practices attended a health examination (1993-1998) and were followed for CVD events/death until April 2007. CVD risk estimates were calculated for 10,137 individuals.
resultsOver 10.1 years, there were 69 CVD events in the diabetes group (25.4%), 160 in the hyperglycemia group (17.7%), and 732 in the normoglycemia group (8.2%). Estimated CVD 10-year risk in the diabetes group was 33 and 37% using the UKPDS and Framingham equations, respectively. In the hyperglycemia group, estimated CVD risks were 31 and 22%, respectively, and for the normoglycemia group risks were 20 and 14%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the ability of the risk equations to discriminate between individuals at different risk of CVD events in each subgroup; both equations overestimated CVD risk. The Framingham equations performed better in the hyperglycemia and normoglycemia groups as they did not overestimate risk as much as the UKPDS Risk Engine, and they classified more participants correctly.
conclusionsBoth the UKPDS Risk Engine and Framingham risk equations were moderately effective at ranking individuals and are therefore suitable for resource prioritization. However, both overestimated true risk, which is important when one is using scores to communicate prognostic information to individuals.
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.