Is estimating lifetime cardiovascular risk useful?

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Global, regional, and country-specific lifetime risks of osteoarthritis, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2021.Global health research and policy · 2025
   Article
2. Repeat Cardiovascular Risk Assessment after Four Years: Is There Improvement in Risk Prediction?PloS one · 2016
   Article
3. Lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease in Aboriginal Australians: a cohort study.BMJ open · 2013
   Article
4. Cardiovascular risk.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Derivation, validation, and evaluation of a new QRISK model to estimate lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease: cohort study using QResearch database.2010

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as