Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29349257›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2017

The tyranny of the averages and the indiscriminate use of risk factors in public health: The case of coronary heart disease.

Juan Merlo, Shai Mulinari, Maria Wemrell, S V Subramanian, Bo Hedblad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. From Averages to Heterogeneity: A Plain-Language Guide to MAIHDA in Epidemiology.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Variance partition that eludes intuition.SSM - population health · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Juan MerloUnit of Social Epidemiology, CRC, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.
Shai MulinariUnit of Social Epidemiology, CRC, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.
Maria WemrellUnit of Social Epidemiology, CRC, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.
S V SubramanianDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Bo HedbladUnit for Cardiovascular Epidemiology, CRC, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern medicine is overwhelmed by a plethora of both established risk factors and novel biomarkers for diseases. The majority of this information is expressed by probabilistic measures of association such as the odds ratio (OR) obtained by calculating differences in average "risk" between exposed and unexposed groups. However, recent research demonstrates that even ORs of considerable magnitude are insufficient for assessing the ability of risk factors or biomarkers to distinguish the individuals who will develop the disease from those who will not. In regards to coronary heart disease (CHD), we already know that novel biomarkers add very little to the discriminatory accuracy (DA) of traditional risk factors. However, the value added by traditional risk factors alongside simple demographic variables such as age and sex has been the subject of less discussion. Moreover, in public health, we use the OR to calculate the population attributable fraction (PAF), although this measure fails to consider the DA of the risk factor it represents. Therefore, focusing on CHD and applying measures of DA, we re-examine the role of individual demographic characteristics, risk factors, novel biomarkers and PAFs in public health and epidemiology. In so doing, we also raise a more general criticism of the traditional risk factors' epidemiology. We investigated a cohort of 6103 men and women who participated in the baseline (1991-1996) of the Malmö Diet and Cancer study and were followed for 18 years. We found that neither traditional risk factors nor biomarkers substantially improved the DA obtained by models considering only age and sex. We concluded that the PAF measure provided insufficient information for the planning of preventive strategies in the population. We need a better understanding of the individual heterogeneity around the averages and, thereby, a fundamental change in the way we interpret risk factors in public health and epidemiology.

Indexed as

ACE, Average causal effectAUC, Area under the ROC curveCABG, Coronary artery bypass graftCHD, Coronary heart diseaseCoronary heart diseaseCRP, C-reactive proteinDA, Discriminatory accuracyDiscriminatory accuracyFPF, False positive fractionHDL, High-density lipoprotein cholesterolHR, Hazard ratiosICE, Individual causal effectIndividual heterogeneityLDL, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterolLp-PLA2, Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2MDC study, The Malmö Diet and CancerMultilevel analysisNTBNP, N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptideOR, Odds ratioOver-diagnosisOvertreatmentPAF, Population attributable fractionPAH, Phenylalanine hydroxylasePCI, Percutaneous coronary interventionPKU, PhenylketonuriaPopulation attributable fractionRCT, Randomized clinical trialRisk factorsROC, Receiver operating characteristicRR, Relative riskTPF, True positive fraction

Identifiers

PMID29349257
PMCPMC5769103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.