ArticleClinical epidemiology2018
Validity of a method for the self-screening of cardiovascular risk.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02373319 (Validity and Effectiveness of a Method for Self-screening of Cardiovascular Risk), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Validity and Effectiveness of a Method for Self-screening of Cardiovascular Risk
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular disease prevention by personalized health promotion considering educational attainment.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Lifestyle and Cardiovascular Risk Factors by Educational Attainment in a Mediterranean Setting: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of a Population-Based Sample.Global heart · 2026Article
- Cohort profile: the CORDELIA study (Collaborative cOhorts Reassembled Data to study mEchanisms and Longterm Incidence of chronic diseAses).European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Can we trust published evidence on point-of-care tests for cholesterol? A rapid review.BMJ open · 2025Review
- A digital tool for self-reporting cardiovascular risk factors: The RADICAL study.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Article
- Reliability, usability and identified need for home-based cardiometabolic health self-assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Soweto, South Africa.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe validity of a cardiovascular risk self-screening method was assessed. The results obtained for self-measurement of blood pressure, a point-of-care system's assessment of lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin, and a self-administered questionnaire (sex, age, diabetes, tobacco consumption) were compared with the standard screening (gold standard) conducted by a health professional.
methodsCrossover clinical trial on a population-based sample from Girona (north-eastern Spain), aged 35-74, with no cardiovascular disease at recruitment. Participants were randomized to one of the two risk assessment sequences (standard screening followed by self-screening or vice versa). Cardiovascular risk was estimated with the Framingham-REGICOR function. Concordance between methods was estimated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were estimated, considering 5% cardiovascular risk as the cutoff point. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT02373319. Clinical Research Ethic Committee of the Parc de Salut Mar Registration #2014/5815/I.
resultsThe median cardiovascular risk in men was 2.56 (interquartile range: 1.42-4.35) estimated by standard methods and 2.25 (1.28-4.07) by self-screening with ICC=0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.93). In women, the cardiovascular risk was 1.14 (0.61-2.10) by standard methods and 1.10 (0.56-2.00) by self-screening, with ICC=0.89 (0.87-0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the self-screening method were 0.74 (0.63-0.82), 0.97 (0.95-0.99), 0.86 (0.77-0.93), and 0.94 (0.91-0.96), respectively, in men. In women, these values were 0.50 (0.30-0.70), 0.99 (0.98-1), 0.81 (0.54-0.96), and 0.97 (0.95-0.99), respectively.
conclusionThe self-screening method for assessing cardiovascular risk provided similar results to the standard method. Self-screening had high clinical performance to rule out intermediate or high cardiovascular risk.
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.