ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2015
Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment: Review of Established and Newer Modalities.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Cardiovascular biomarkers in body fluids: progress and prospects in optical sensors.Biophysical reviews · 2022Review
- Associations of adversity in childhood and risk factors for cardiovascular disease in mid-adulthood.Child abuse & neglect · 2018Article
- Data on IL-6 c.-174 G>C genotype and allele frequencies in patients with coronary heart disease in dependence of cardiovascular outcome.Data in brief · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementCardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment has changed substantially in recent years. Statins are recommended for a larger proportion of Americans based on a recently recommended CVD global risk calculator derived from studies of multiple large, diverse, community-based cohorts. Recent research shows that patients that are intermediate risk for CVD events may benefit from net reclassification of risk based on circulatory biomarkers like c-reactive protein, interleukin-6, lipoprotein(a), and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2. In addition, multiple imaging biomarker modalities, including coronary artery calcium and carotid intima-media thickness, may play an important role in further risk stratification for patients in the later stages of CVD development. The data obtained from these markers could play an important role for deciding how aggressive a physician should be with pharmacological therapy. Here, we discuss many of the current recommendations of CVD risk assessment including those included and excluded from recent guidelines, while addressing the most recent data supporting renewed and newer modalities for CVD risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26472424What 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.