ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2017
Reliability of Cardiovascular Risk Calculators to Estimate Accurately the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Sarcoidosis.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular disease risk estimates using the new PREVENT Equation: The good, bad, and the ugly.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Navigating the Landscape of Cardiovascular Risk Scores: A Comparative Analysis of Eight Risk Prediction Models in a High-Risk Cohort in Lithuania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Association between Sarcoidosis and Ischemic Heart Disease-A Healthcare Analysis of a Large Israeli Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Assessing severity of cardiac sarcoid: Is SUV the answer?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Events Among Incident Cases of Systemic Sclerosis: Results From a Population-Based Cohort (1980-2016).Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic inflammation is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but most risk calculators, including the Framingham risk score (FRS) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) risk score do not account for it. These calculators underestimate cardiovascular risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. To date, how these scores perform in the estimation of CVD risk in patients with sarcoidosis has not been assessed. In this study, the FRS and the ACC/AHA risk score were calculated for a previously identified cohort of patients with incident cases of sarcoidosis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, United States, from 1989 to 2013 as well as their gender- and age-matched comparators. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was estimated as the ratio of the predicted and observed numbers of CVD events. All CVD events were identified by diagnosis codes and were verified by individual medical record reviews. The predicted number of CVD events among 188 cases by FRS was 11.8 and the observed number of CVD events was 34, which corresponded to an SIR of 2.88 (95% confidence interval 2.06 to 4.04). FRS underestimated the risk of CVD events in patients with sarcoidosis by gender, age and severity of sarcoidosis. The predicted number of CVD events among cases by ACC/AHA risk score was 4.6 and the observed number of CVD events was 19, corresponding to an SIR of 4.11 (95% confidence interval 2.62 to 6.44). In conclusion, the FRS and the ACC/AHA risk score underestimate the risk of CVD in patients with sarcoidosis.
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.