SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010
An independent and external validation of QRISK2 cardiovascular disease risk score: a prospective open cohort study.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 3 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
118 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Opportunities and Challenges of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction for Primary Prevention Using Machine Learning and Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Validity of cardiovascular risk prediction models in kidney transplant recipients.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2014Pooled it
- South Asians and coronary disease: is there discordance between effects on incidence and prognosis?Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2013Pooled it
- Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012Trial
- Identifying patients with suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012Trial
- Development of a prediction model for mortality in infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia for neonatal encephalopathy.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- A comparative study of cardiovascular diseases risk profile among HIV-positive individuals on antiretroviral therapy and HIV-negative controls in a secondary healthcare setting in southwest Nigeria.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular risk stratification in inflammatory-driven conditions: how far have we come?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular risk prediction in women: rethinking traditional approaches through precision medicine.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
- Is αERJ open research · 2025Article
- Article
- Key Determinants of Cardiovascular Outcomes in Multi-Ethnic Patients With Rheumatic Disease Using JAK Inhibitors.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Article
- Exploring the Current Tools in Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in the Middle East and the Need for Region-Specific Models - A Scoping Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Review
- Predicting Admission to Neonatal Care Unit at Mid-Pregnancy and Delivery Using Data from a General Obstetric Population.Maternal and child health journal · 2024Article
- Optimizing Cardiovascular Health: A Comprehensive Review of Risk Assessment Strategies for Primary Prevention.Cureus · 2024Review
- Evolving Concepts of the SCORE System: Subtracting Cholesterol from Risk Estimation: A Way for a Healthy Longevity?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Lifetime effects and cost-effectiveness of standard and higher-intensity statin therapy across population categories in the UK: a microsimulation modelling study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Age at cardiovascular disease onset, dementia risk, and the role of lifestyle factors.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of the QRISK2 score for predicting 10-year cardiovascular disease in an independent UK cohort of patients from general practice records and to compare it with the NICE version of the Framingham equation and QRISK1.
designProspective cohort study to validate a cardiovascular risk score.
setting365 practices from United Kingdom contributing to The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database.
participants1.58 million patients registered with a general practice between 1 January 1993 and 20 June 2008, aged 35-74 years (9.4 million person years) with 71 465 cardiovascular events.
main outcome measuresFirst diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, coronary heart disease, stroke, and transient ischaemic stroke) recorded in general practice records.
resultsQRISK2 offered improved prediction of a patient's 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease over the NICE version of the Framingham equation. Discrimination and calibration statistics were better with QRISK2. QRISK2 explained 33% of the variation in men and 40% for women, compared with 29% and 34% respectively for the NICE Framingham and 32% and 38% respectively for QRISK1. The incidence rate of cardiovascular events (per 1000 person years) among men in the high risk group was 27.8 (95% CI 27.4 to 28.2) with QRISK2, 21.9 (21.6 to 22.2) with NICE Framingham, and 24.8 (22.8 to 26.9) with QRISK1. Similarly, the incidence rate of cardiovascular events (per 1000 person years) among women in the high risk group was 24.3 (23.8 to 24.9) with QRISK2, 20.6 (20.1 to 21.0) with NICE Framingham, and 21.8 (18.9 to 24.6) with QRISK1.
conclusionsQRISK2 is more accurate in identifying a high risk population for cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom than the NICE version of the Framingham equation. Differences in performance between QRISK2 and QRISK1 were marginal.
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.