ArticlePloS one2015
Framingham ten-year general cardiovascular disease risk: agreement between BMI-based and cholesterol-based estimates in a South Asian convenience sample.
Article in PloS one, 2015. 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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing Non-Laboratory-Based and Laboratory-Based Cardiovascular Risk Predictions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
- The association between obstructive sleep apnea risk and cardiovascular disease risk in midlife Thai women in the U.S.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of 10-year cardiovascular disease risk in Bangladesh: a comparative analysis of laboratory and non-laboratory-based WHO risk prediction models.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Risk among People Living with HIV in Ghana.Infection & chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Evaluating the discriminatory capacity of traditional and novel anthropometric indices in cardiovascular disease risk factors, considering sex differences.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- A comparison of laboratory-based and office-based Framingham risk scores to predict 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases: a population-based study.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Laboratory-based versus non-laboratory-based World Health Organization risk equations for assessment of cardiovascular disease risk.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- The Relationship Between Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Major Depression.Noro psikiyatri arsivi · 2023Article
- Laboratory-based and office-based Globorisk scores to predict 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases among Iranians: results from the Fasa PERSIAN cohort.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparison of laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based WHO cardiovascular disease risk charts: a population-based study.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Agreement between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based Framingham risk score in Southern Iran.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness evaluation of aspirin in primary prevention of myocardial infarction amongst males with average cardiovascular risk in Iran.Research in pharmaceutical sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this analysis was to determine the agreement between body mass index-based and cholesterol-based ten-year Framingham general cardiovascular disease risk scores among a convenience sample of 773 South Asian Canadian adults attending community-based screening clinics. Scores were calculated using age, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive use, current smoking, diabetes, and total cholesterol and high density lipoprotein (for cholesterol-based risk) or height and weight (for body mass index-based risk). Mean risk score differences (body mass index-based risk minus cholesterol-based risk) were estimated using paired t-tests. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between scores. Finally, agreement across risk categories (low [<10%], moderate [10% to <20%], high [> = 20%]) was examined using the kappa statistic. Average agreement between the two risk scores was quite good overall (mean differences of 0.6% for men and 0.5% for women), but increased to about 3% among participants 60-74 years of age. However, Bland-Altman plots revealed that the differences between the two scores and the variability of the differences increased with increasing average 10-year risk. In terms of clinical importance, the limits of agreement were reasonable for women < 60 years (95% confidence interval: -3.2% to 3.1%), but of concern for women 60-74 years (95% confidence interval: -6.0% to 12.3%), men < 60 years (95% confidence interval: -7.1% to 7.3%) and men 6-074 years (95% confidence interval: -13.8% to 18.8%). Agreement across categories was moderate for most sex and age groups examined (kappa values: 0.51 for women < 60 years, 0.50 for women 60-74 years, 0.65 for men < 60 years), except for men 60-74 years, where agreement was only fair (kappa = 0.26). In light of these disagreements, evaluation of a participant's change in cardiovascular disease risk over time will necessitate use of the same risk score (i.e., either body mass index-based or cholesterol-based) at all screening sessions.
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.