SynthesisEuropean heart journal2019
Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies.
Synthesis in European heart journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cardiac Troponins and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: An Individual-Participant-Data Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025 · on this mapPooled it
- Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Bempedoic Acid in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients with Statin Intolerance: An Analysis of the CLEAR Outcomes Trial.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Trial
- Prediction of incident heart failure in individuals without prior cardiovascular disease: the SCORE2-HF risk model.European heart journal · 2026Article
- A machine learning model for early risk stratification of 28-day mortality after myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptors: structure, signaling and roles in atherosclerosis.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Validation and Recalibration of PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT Models for Estimating ASCVD Risk in China.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Derivation and validation of a widely accessible cardiovascular risk prediction model and derived heart age for the general UK and US populations.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- External validation and recalibration of cardiovascular risk scores for prediction of 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease: a prospective, observational, population-based cohort analysis of adults in Mexico City.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Metabolic inflexibility mediates the association between type 2 diabetes and impaired post-exercise heart rate recovery: a mediation analysis.Nutrition & metabolism · 2026Article
- Statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Germany: benefits and costs.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Integrating conformal prediction with machine learning for uncertainty-aware risk stratification in coronary artery disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular disease risk estimates using the new PREVENT Equation: The good, bad, and the ugly.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- External validation and recalibration of office- and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk scores for prediction of 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in 112,262 adults in Mexico City.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Older Adults.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- Tailoring cardiovascular risk prediction to females.The Journal of endocrinology · 2025Review
- Polygenic risk scores improve CAD risk prediction in individuals at borderline and intermediate clinical risk.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Article
- A systematic review of strategies in digital technologies for motivating adherence to chronic illness self-care.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Risk prediction of cardiovascular disease in the Asia-Pacific region: the SCORE2 Asia-Pacific model.European heart journal · 2025Article
- Simplifying coronary artery disease risk stratification: development and validation of a questionnaire-based alternative comparable to clinical risk tools.EBioMedicine · 2025Article
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
101 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThere is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied. METHODS AND
resultsUsing individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29-39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44-51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.
conclusionBefore recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.
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.