ArticleBMC research notes2015
Variation among cardiovascular risk calculators in relative risk increases with identical risk factor increases.
Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statin Treatment in Specific Patient Groups: Role for Improved Cardiovascular Risk Markers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Impact of Changes in Inflammation on Estimated Ten-Year Cardiovascular Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2018Article
- High throughput quantification of apolipoproteins A-I and B-100 by isotope dilution MS targeting fast trypsin releasable peptides without reduction and alkylation.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk estimates for the same patient can vary substantially among cardiovascular risk calculators and the reasons are not fully explained. We compared the relative risk increases for consistent risk factors changes across different cardiovascular risk calculators.
methodsFive clinicians independently selected 16 calculators providing absolute risk estimations. Hypothetical patients were generated using a combination of seven risk factors [age, gender, smoking, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), total cholesterol and diabetes] dichotomized to high and low risk, generating 2(7) patients (128 total). Relative risk increases due to specific risk factors were determined and compared.
resultsThe 16 selected calculators were from six countries, used 5- and 10-year predictions, and estimated CVD or coronary heart disease risk. Across the different calculators for non-diabetic patients, changing age from 50 to 70 produced average relative risk increases from 82 to 395%, gender (female to male) 35-225%, smoking status 31-118%, systolic blood pressure (120-160 mmHg) 16-124%, total cholesterol (4-7 mmol/L) 51-302% and HDL (1.3-0.8 mmol/L) 27-133%. Similar results were found among diabetic patients. Some calculators appeared to have consistently higher relative risk increases over multiple risk factors.
conclusionsCardiovascular risk calculators weigh the same risk factors differently. For each risk factor, the relative risk increase from the calculator with the highest increase was generally three to eight times greater than the relative risk increase from the calculator with lowest increase. This likely contributes to some of the inconsistency in risk calculator estimation. It also limits the use of risk calculators in estimating the benefits of therapy.
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.