ArticleIndian heart journal
Comparison of different cardiovascular risk score calculators for cardiovascular risk prediction and guideline recommended statin uses.
Article in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
76 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 157 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of predictive testing for ischemic heart disease in those with a family history and the impact of results on behavioural intention and behaviour change: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- Development and validation of multicentre study on novel Artificial Intelligence-based Cardiovascular Risk Score (AICVD).Family medicine and community health · 2024Trial
- Effects on Cardiovascular Risk Scores and Vascular Age After Aerobic Exercise and Nutritional Intervention in Sedentary and Overweight/Obese Adults with Primary Hypertension: The EXERDIET-HTA Randomized Trial Study.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2018Trial
- Cardiovascular risk at health checks performed opportunistically or following an invitation letter. Cohort study.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2018Trial
- Implementation of cardiovascular disease risk prediction scores in Sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Drivers of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in South Asians: Current Insights and Future Directions.JACC. Asia · 2026Review
- Validating predictive models on EHRs data : lessons learnt from the NCDR-IMPACT-score applied on a French cardiac catheterization cohort.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Global Leukocyte DNA Methylation Is Associated with Dietary Methyl-Donor Intake and Cardiometabolic Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Control Subjects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Congruity between WHO ISH laboratory and non-laboratory-based charts in an urban population in India: A cross-sectional community-based analytical study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Regional variations in cardiovascular risk predictions: a comparative analysis of Framingham, SCORE2, and WHO models across 53 countries.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Reconsidering the use of race, sex, and age in clinical algorithms to address bias in practice: A discussion paper.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Community-based evaluation of cardiovascular risk using QRISKBMC public health · 2025Article
- An exploratory analysis of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease risk calculations in veterans with spinal cord injury and disorders.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Cardiometabolic Risk in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Hidden Burden of Inflammation and Metabolic Dysregulation.Metabolites · 2025Review
- Risk Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease in HIV Infected Individuals Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy - Shanghai Municipality, China, 2023.China CDC weekly · 2025Article
- A multidimensional approach to assess cardiovascular disease risk combining biochemical, hematological, lipid ratios, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and WHO/ISH 10-year risk estimators: a cross-sectional study.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2025Article
- Saudi Heart Association Position Statement on Early Detection of Subclinical Atherosclerosis in Clinical Practice.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2025Article
- Saudi Heart Association Position Statement on Troponin use for Cardiovascular Risk Screening in Asymptomatic Populations.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2025Article
- Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its association with cardiovascular disease risk and common risk factors amongst healthcare workers in Pakistan.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe accuracy of various 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators in Indians may not be the same as in other populations. Present study was conducted to compare the various calculators for CVD risk assessment and statin eligibility according to different guidelines.
methodsConsecutive 1110 patients who presented after their first myocardial infarction were included. Their CVD risk was calculated using Framingham Risk score- Coronary heart disease (FRS-CHD), Framingham Risk Score- Cardiovascular Disease (FRS-CVD), QRISK2, Joint British Society risk calculator 3 (JBS3), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and WHO risk charts, assuming that they had presented one day before cardiac event for risk assessment. Eligibility for statin uses was also looked into using ACC/AHA, NICE and Canadian guidelines.
resultsFRS-CVD risk assessment model has performed the best as it could identify the highest number of patients (51.9%) to be at high CVD risk while WHO and ASCVD calculators have performed the worst (only 16.2% and 28.3% patients respectively were stratified into high CVD risk) considering 20% as cut off for high risk definition. QRISK2, JBS3 and FRS-CHD have performed intermediately. Using NICE, ACC/AHA and Canadian guidelines; 76%, 69% and 44.6% patients respectively were found to be eligible for statin use.
conclusionFRS-CVD appears to be the most useful for CVD risk assessment in Indians, but the difference may be because FRS-CVD estimates risk for several additional outcomes as compared with other risk scores. For statin eligibility, however, NICE guideline use is the most appropriate.
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.