Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30310997›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018

The Evolving Cardiovascular Disease Risk Scores for Persons with Diabetes Mellitus.

Yanglu Zhao, Nathan D Wong

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Yanglu ZhaoDepartment of Epidemiology, University of California Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. juliayanglu@ucla.edu.
Nathan D WongDepartment of Epidemiology, University of California Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe briefly introduce the concept and use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores and review the methodology for CVD risk score development and validation in patients with diabetes. We also discuss CVD risk scores for diabetic patients that have been developed in different countries. RECENT

findingsPatients with diabetes have a gradient of CVD risk that needs to be accurately assessed. Numerous CVD risk scores for diabetic patients have been created in various settings. The methods to develop risk scores are highly diverse and each choice has its own pros and cons. A well-constructed risk score for diabetic patients may be advocated by guidelines and adopted by healthcare providers to help determine preventive strategies. New risk factors are being investigated in order to improve the predictive accuracy of current risk scores. A suitable CVD risk score for the diabetes population should be accurate, low-cost, and beneficial to outcome. While the performance (accuracy) has all been internally validated, validation on external populations is still needed. Cost-effectiveness and clinical trials demonstrating improvement in outcomes are limited and should be the target of future research.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCardiovascular diseaseDiabetesDisease risk score

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.