Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20824362›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2010

Coronary risk assessment by point-based vs. equation-based Framingham models: significant implications for clinical care.

William J Gordon, Jesse M Polansky, W John Boscardin, Kathy Z Fung, Michael A Steinman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Assessing coronary risk assessment: what's next?Journal of general internal medicine · 2010
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

William J GordonWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Jesse M Polansky
W John Boscardin
Kathy Z Fung
Michael A Steinman

Funding

Guideline Adherence in Elders With Multiple ComorbiditiesK23AG030999 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI STEINMAN, MICHAEL A. · 2008 to 2010
$391k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG030999NIA NIH HHS K23-AG030999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUS cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version.

methodsWe assessed 2,543 subjects age 20-79 from the 2001-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10-20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative.

resultsAmong 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having "moderate" risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having "moderately high" (10-20%) risk, and 7% as having "high" (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25-46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk.

conclusionsCompared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCholesterolCholesterol, LDLCohort StudiesCoronary DiseaseHumansLipoproteins, HDLMedical History TakingMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysRacial GroupsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsUnited StatesYoung AdultCholesterolCholesterol, LDLLipoproteins, HDL

Identifiers

PMID20824362
PMCPMC2947646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.