Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27943174›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2017

The Dutch SCORE-based risk charts seriously underestimate the risk of cardiovascular disease.

H T Jørstad, S M Boekholdt, N J Wareham, K T Khaw, R J G Peters

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Performance of the SCORE and Globorisk cardiovascular risk prediction models: a prospective cohort study in Dutch general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

H T JørstadDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.t.jorstad@amc.uva.nl.
S M BoekholdtDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
N J WarehamMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
K T KhawDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
R J G PetersDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLMRC Epidemiology Unit · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 8257Medical Research Council G0401527Medical Research Council G0701863Medical Research Council G1000143Medical Research Council MC_U106179471Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/1Medical Research Council MR/N003284/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDutch cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend the use of modified SCORE risk charts to estimate 10-year risk of fatal and nonfatal CVD (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease and congestive heart failure). This combined risk is derived from the SCORE mortality risk using multipliers. These multipliers have been shown to underestimate overall CVD risk. We aimed to compare the current Dutch risk charts with charts that estimate a broader range of clinically relevant CVD using updated multipliers.

methodsWe constructed new risk charts for 10-year CVD using updated, recently published multipliers from the EPIC-Norfolk study, based on ratios of fatal CVD to clinically relevant CVD (fatal plus nonfatal CVD requiring hospitalisation for ischaemic heart disease, cardiac failure, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, and aortic aneurysm). Our primary outcome was the proportion of the three risk categories, i. e. 'high risk' (>20% 10-year risk), 'intermediate risk' (10-19%) and 'low risk' (<10%) in the new risk charts as compared with the current risk charts.

resultsApplying the updated fatal CVD/clinical CVD multipliers led to a marked increase in the high-risk categories (109 (27%) vs. 244 (61%), (p < 0.001)), an absolute increase of 229%. Similarly, the number of low-risk categories decreased (190 (48%) vs. 81 (20%) (p < 0.001)).

conclusionThe current Dutch risk charts seriously underestimate the risk of clinical CVD, even in the first 10 years. Even when analyses are restricted to CVD events that required hospitalisation, true 10-year risks are more than double the currently estimated risks. Future guidelines may be revised to reflect these findings.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular diseaseEpidemiologyRisk assessmentRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID27943174
PMCPMC5313447
OpenAlexW2560347288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.