ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010
A simple risk score using routine data for predicting cardiovascular disease in primary care.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Improved risk stratification in prevention by use of a panel of selected circulating microRNAs.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Cost effectiveness of case-finding strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modelling study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- Cardiovascular screening in general practice in a low SES area.BMC family practice · 2012Article
- Article
- Original and REGICOR Framingham functions in a nondiabetic population of a Spanish health care center: a validation study.Annals of family medicineArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPopulation-based screening for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, incorporating blood tests, is proposed in several countries.
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether a simple approach to identifying individuals at high risk of CVD using routine data might be effective. DESIGN OF STUDY: Prospective cohort study (EPIC-Norfolk).
settingNorfolk area, UK.
methodA total of 21 867 men and women aged 40-74 years, who were free from CVD and diabetes at baseline, participated in the study. The discrimination (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [aROC]), calibration, sensitivity/specificity, and positive/negative predictive value were evaluated for different risk thresholds of the Framingham risk equations and the Cambridge diabetes risk score (as an example of a simple risk score using routine data from electronic general practice records).
resultsDuring 203 664 person-years of follow-up, 2213 participants developed a first CVD event (10.9 per 1000 person-years). The Cambridge diabetes risk score predicted CVD events reasonably well (aROC 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 0.73), while the Framingham risk score had the best predictive ability (aROC 0.77; 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.78). The Framingham risk score overestimated risk of developing CVD in this representative British population by 60%.
conclusionA risk score incorporating routinely available data from GP records performed reasonably well at predicting CVD events. This suggests that it might be more efficient to use routine data as the first stage in a stepwise population screening programme to identify people at high risk of developing CVD before more time- and resource-consuming tests are used.
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.