ArticleJAMA2014
Comparison of application of the ACC/AHA guidelines, Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, and European Society of Cardiology guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in a European cohort.
Article in JAMA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 144 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
144 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 356 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the Mechanism of Protective Effects of Tanshinone as a New Fighter Against Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- 2019 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With High Blood Pressure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019Guideline
- 2019 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With High Blood Pressure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2019Guideline
- 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019Guideline
- Performance of the Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies.European heart journal · 2019Pooled it
- Dietary Intervention for Overweight and Obese Adults: Comparison of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets. A Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Guanxin Danshen Dripping Pills Improve Quality of Life and Cardiovascular Prognoses of CHD Patients after PCI with Anxiety or Depression (GLAD Study): A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2023Trial
- Statin use and outcome risks according to predicted CVD risk in Korea: A retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Cardiovascular risk algorithms in primary care: Results from the DETECT study.Scientific reports · 2019Trial
- A next-generation prediction risk model for acute myocardial infarction: Derivation and validation in a multi-centre cohort.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Article
- Validation and Recalibration of PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT Models for Estimating ASCVD Risk in China.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Epidemiology and cardiometabolic care in adults with ASCVD and high 10-year ASCVD risk: 2021 WHO STEPS study in Iran.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Coronary Plaque Vulnerability and Pericoronary Adipose Tissue Inflammation: Emerging Insights from Advanced CT Imaging.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Identification of key cardiovascular disease predictive factors from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study dataset using machine learning-based algorithms.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- External validation of the PREVENT risk score: performance and clinical utility in an Iranian population.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- External validity of cardiovascular risk assessment tools in individuals with MASLD (NAFLD): a cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Retinal vascular alterations as assessment indicators of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in dyslipidemia patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
84 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines introduced a prediction model and lowered the threshold for treatment with statins to a 7.5% 10-year hard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Implications of the new guideline's threshold and model have not been addressed in non-US populations or compared with previous guidelines.
objectiveTo determine population-wide implications of the ACC/AHA, the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines using a cohort of Dutch individuals aged 55 years or older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsWe included 4854 Rotterdam Study participants recruited in 1997-2001. We calculated 10-year risks for "hard" ASCVD events (including fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease [CHD] and stroke) (ACC/AHA), hard CHD events (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, CHD mortality) (ATP-III), and atherosclerotic CVD mortality (ESC). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Events were assessed until January 1, 2012. Per guideline, we calculated proportions of individuals for whom statins would be recommended and determined calibration and discrimination of risk models.
resultsThe mean age was 65.5 (SD, 5.2) years. Statins would be recommended for 96.4% (95% CI, 95.4%-97.1%; n = 1825) of men and 65.8% (95% CI, 63.8%-67.7%; n = 1523) of women by the ACC/AHA, 52.0% (95% CI, 49.8%-54.3%; n = 985) of men and 35.5% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.5%; n = 821) of women by the ATP-III, and 66.1% (95% CI, 64.0%-68.3%; n = 1253) of men and 39.1% (95% CI, 37.1%-41.2%; n = 906) of women by ESC guidelines. With the ACC/AHA model, average predicted risk vs observed cumulative incidence of hard ASCVD events was 21.5% (95% CI, 20.9%-22.1%) vs 12.7% (95% CI, 11.1%-14.5%) for men (192 events) and 11.6% (95% CI, 11.2%-12.0%) vs 7.9% (95% CI, 6.7%-9.2%) for women (151 events). Similar overestimation occurred with the ATP-III model (98 events in men and 62 events in women) and ESC model (50 events in men and 37 events in women). The C statistic was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71) in men and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.73) in women for hard ASCVD (ACC/AHA), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) in men and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) in women for hard CHD (ATP-III), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70-0.82) in men and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.83) in women for CVD mortality (ESC). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this European population aged 55 years or older, proportions of individuals eligible for statins differed substantially among the guidelines. The ACC/AHA guideline would recommend statins for nearly all men and two-thirds of women, proportions exceeding those with the ATP-III or ESC guidelines. All 3 risk models provided poor calibration and moderate to good discrimination. Improving risk predictions and setting appropriate population-wide thresholds are necessary to facilitate better clinical decision making.
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.