ArticleAtherosclerosis2010
Common clinical practice versus new PRIM score in predicting coronary heart disease risk.
Article in Atherosclerosis, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a clinical score for predicting risk of adenoma at screening colonoscopy.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the new Patient Rule Induction Method (PRIM) Score and common clinical practice with the Framingham Point Score for classification of individuals with respect to coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. METHODS AND
resultsPRIM Score and the Framingham Point Score were estimated for 11,444 participants from the Copenhagen City Heart Study. Gender specific cumulative incidences and 10 year absolute CHD risks were estimated for subsets defined by age, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes and smoking categories. PRIM defined seven mutually exclusive subsets in women and men, with cumulative incidences of CHD from 0.01 to 0.22 in women, and from 0.03 to 0.26 in men. PRIM versus Framingham Point Score found 11% versus 4% of all women, and 31% versus 35% of all men to have 10 year CHD risks>20%. Among women ≥ 65 years with hypertension and/or with diabetes, 10 year CHD risk>20% was found for 100% with PRIM scoring but for only 18% with the Framingham Point Score.
conclusionCompared to the PRIM Score, common clinical practice with the Framingham Point Score underestimates CHD risk in women, especially in women≥65 years with hypertension and/or with diabetes.
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.