Trial reportCritical pathways in cardiology2014
Utility of Framingham risk score in urban emergency department patients with asymptomatic hypertension.
Trial report in Critical pathways in cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Hypertension (HTN) is the primary population-attributable risk for the development of heart failure (HF); a disease with devastating consequences particularly in urban centers where morbidity and mortality are more pronounced. The Framingham Risk Profile (FRP) is widely used to quantify risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but its applicability in an urban population who utilize the emergency department (ED) for primary care is unknown. The objective of this study is to evaluate FRP scores in ED patients with asymptomatic HTN and subclinical hypertensive heart disease (SHHD). This is a substudy of a prospective randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate optimal blood pressure (BP) targets. Eligible patients were screened with echocardiography for the presence of SHHD and FRP scores were calculated. One hundred forty-nine patients enrolled in the study, 133 (89.2%) of whom had detectable SHHD. Mean [SD] calculated FRP scores were statistically similar for patients with SHHD versus those without (general CVD: 20.2 [8.5] vs. 15.6 [8.7]; P = 0.13 and HF calibrated: 2.4 [1.0] vs. 1.8 [1.0]; P = 0.12) corresponding to a calculated risk of 15%-30% for subsequent development of CVD. The HF-specific risk score for patients with SHHD was 2.4, which equates to a 2.5% risk of HF development in 10 years. The FRP correctly identified those with SHHD as high-risk for general CVD but appeared to underestimate the likelihood of HF. Recalibration of the HF adjustment factor and inclusion of additional data elements such as echocardiography is needed to enhance applicability of the FRP in this setting.
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.