ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2010
Performance of the Framingham and SCORE cardiovascular risk prediction functions in a non-diabetic population of a Spanish health care centre: a validation study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research inefficiencies in external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease risk rule: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of Aerobic and Resistance Exercise Intervention on Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA oncology · 2019Trial
- Which patient and treatment factors are related to successful cardiovascular risk score reduction in general practice? Results from a randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2013Trial
- Exercise, cancer, and the cardiovascular system: clinical effects and mechanistic insights.Basic research in cardiology · 2025Review
- Evidence supporting the choice of a new cardiovascular risk equation for Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Review
- Performance of the SCORE and Globorisk cardiovascular risk prediction models: a prospective cohort study in Dutch general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models and Scores in the Era of Personalized Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Prediction for cardiovascular diseases based on laboratory data: An analysis of random forest model.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
- A 10- and 15-year performance analysis of ESC/EAS and ACC/AHA cardiovascular risk scores in a Southern European cohort.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Article
- Beneficial changes on plasma apolipoproteins A and B, high density lipoproteins and oxidized low density lipoproteins in obese women after bariatric surgery: comparison between gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.Lipids in health and disease · 2018Article
- Cardiovascular risk assessment by FRS and SCORE in Iranian adult population.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2017Article
- Independent external validation of cardiovascular disease mortality in women utilising Framingham and SCORE risk models: a mortality follow-up study.BMC women's health · 2014Article
- Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension: rule of thirds in the Skaraborg project.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2012Article
- Comparison of the Framingham and Reynolds Risk scores for global cardiovascular risk prediction in the multiethnic Women's Health Initiative.Circulation · 2012Article
- Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the 10-year performance of the original Framingham coronary risk function and of the SCORE cardiovascular death risk function in a non-diabetic population of 40-65 years of age served by a Spanish healthcare centre. Also, to estimate the percentage of patients who are candidates for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy.
designLongitudinal, observational study of a retrospective cohort followed up for 10 years.
settingPrimary care health centre. PATIENTS: A total of 608 non-diabetic patients of 40-65 years of age (mean 52.8 years, 56.7% women), without evidence of cardiovascular disease were studied.
main outcome measuresCoronary risk at 10 years from the time of their recruitment, using the tables based on the original Framingham function, and of their 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease using the SCORE tables.
resultsThe actual incidence rates of coronary and fatal cardiovascular events were 7.9% and 1.5%, respectively. The original Framingham equation over-predicted risk by 64%, while SCORE function over-predicted risk by 40%, but the SCORE model performed better than the Framingham one for discrimination and calibration statistics. The original Framingham function classified 18.3% of the population as high risk and SCORE 9.2%. The proportions of patients who would be candidates for lipid-lowering therapy were 31.0% and 23.8% according to the original Framingham and SCORE functions, respectively, and 36.8% and 31.2% for antihypertensive therapy.
conclusionThe SCORE function showed better values than the original Framingham function for each of the discrimination and calibration statistics. The original Framingham function selected a greater percentage of candidates for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy.
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.