ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2017
Use and Customization of Risk Scores for Predicting Cardiovascular Events Using Electronic Health Record Data.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01420016 (Prioritized Clinical Decision Support), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 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.
Prioritized Clinical Decision Support (CDS) to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019Guideline
- Digital phenotyping and ASCVD risk: An exploratory cross-sectional analysis using online behavioral data.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Harnessing Electronic Health Records and Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Review
- Validation of the European SCORE2 models in a Canadian primary care cohort.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2024Article
- Imaging subclinical coronary atherosclerosis to guide lipid management, are we there yet?American journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Review
- Evaluation of available risk scores to predict multiple cardiovascular complications for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using electronic health records.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine update · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models in China: Results From the CHERRY Study.JACC. Asia · 2022Article
- Electronic Medical Record-Based Case Phenotyping for the Charlson Conditions: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Predictive Accuracy of Heart Failure-Specific Risk Equations in an Electronic Health Record-Based Cohort.Circulation. Heart failure · 2020Article
- Optimizing Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimation for Veterans With Diabetes Mellitus.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2020Article
- The Impact of the 2019 European Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Management: A Cross-Sectional Study in General Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Estimation of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Noninvasive sublingual microvascular imaging reveals sex-specific reduction in glycocalyx barrier properties in patients with coronary artery disease.Physiological reports · 2020Article
- 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation · 2019 · on this mapReview
- Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction in Disaggregated Asian and Hispanic Subgroups Using Electronic Health Records.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
- The Use of Risk Enhancing Factors to Personalize ASCVD Risk Assessment: Evidence and Recommendations from the 2018 AHA/ACC Multi-society Cholesterol Guidelines.Current cardiovascular risk reports · 2019Article
- Leveraging the Electronic Health Record to Create an Automated Real-Time Prognostic Tool for Peripheral Arterial Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Article
- Performance of the Net Reclassification Improvement for Nonnested Models and a Novel Percentile-Based Alternative.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Subclinical atherosclerosis, cardiovascular health, and disease risk: is there a case for the Cardiovascular Health Index in the primary prevention population?BMC public health · 2018Article
- Implementing Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice: The Future Is Now.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinicians who are using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) or the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) to estimate risk for their patients based on electronic health data (EHD) face 4 questions. (1) Do published risk scores applied to EHD yield accurate estimates of cardiovascular risk? (2) Are FRS risk estimates, which are based on data that are up to 45 years old, valid for a contemporary patient population seeking routine care? (3) Do the PCE make the FRS obsolete? (4) Does refitting the risk score using EHD improve the accuracy of risk estimates? METHODS AND
resultsData were extracted from the EHD of 84 116 adults aged 40 to 79 years who received care at a large healthcare delivery and insurance organization between 2001 and 2011. We assessed calibration and discrimination for 4 risk scores: published versions of FRS and PCE and versions obtained by refitting models using a subset of the available EHD. The published FRS was well calibrated (calibration statistic K=9.1, miscalibration ranging from 0% to 17% across risk groups), but the PCE displayed modest evidence of miscalibration (calibration statistic K=43.7, miscalibration from 9% to 31%). Discrimination was similar in both models (C-index=0.740 for FRS, 0.747 for PCE). Refitting the published models using EHD did not substantially improve calibration or discrimination.
conclusionsWe conclude that published cardiovascular risk models can be successfully applied to EHD to estimate cardiovascular risk; the FRS remains valid and is not obsolete; and model refitting does not meaningfully improve the accuracy of risk estimates.
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.