ReviewBMC cardiovascular disorders2013
Evaluation of the performance of existing non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms.
Review in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03512691 (The Nueva Ecija Cardiovascular Risk Experiment), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
The Nueva Ecija Cardiovascular Risk Experiment: An Evaluation of the Impact of Risk Information and Screening on Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tools for Assessing Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Underserved Young Adult Populations: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Congruity between WHO ISH laboratory and non-laboratory-based charts in an urban population in India: A cross-sectional community-based analytical study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Association Between Physical Fitness and Cardiovascular Health in Chilean Schoolchildren from the Metropolitan Region.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Polygenic Risk Score for Cardiovascular Diseases in Artificial Intelligence Paradigm: A Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Preliminary study of perceived cardiovascular disease risk and risk status of adults in small rural and urban locations in Ibadan, Nigeria.AIMS public health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of cardiovascular diseases risk calculators for CVDs prevention and management: scoping review.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Framingham Risk Score Assessment in Subjects with Pre-diabetes and Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study in Korea.Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome · 2021Article
- Comparative performance of pooled cohort equations and Framingham risk scores in cardiovascular disease risk classification in a slum setting in Nairobi Kenya.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe high burden and rising incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in resource constrained countries necessitates implementation of robust and pragmatic primary and secondary prevention strategies. Many current CVD management guidelines recommend absolute cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment as a clinically sound guide to preventive and treatment strategies. Development of non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms enable absolute risk assessment in resource constrained countries.The objective of this review is to evaluate the performance of existing non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms using the benchmarks for clinically useful CV risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues.
methodsA literature search to identify non-laboratory based risk prediction algorithms was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Ovid Premier Nursing Journals Plus, and PubMed databases. The identified algorithms were evaluated using the benchmarks for clinically useful cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues.
resultsFive non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms were identified. The Gaziano and Framingham algorithms met the criteria for appropriateness of statistical methods used to derive the algorithms and endpoints. The Swedish Consultation, Framingham and Gaziano algorithms demonstrated good discrimination in derivation datasets. Only the Gaziano algorithm was externally validated where it had optimal discrimination. The Gaziano and WHO algorithms had chart formats which made them simple and user friendly for clinical application.
conclusionBoth the Gaziano and Framingham non-laboratory based algorithms met most of the criteria outlined by Cooney and colleagues. External validation of the algorithms in diverse samples is needed to ascertain their performance and applicability to different populations and to enhance clinicians' confidence in them.
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.