ReviewClinical rheumatology2019
Performance and calibration of the algorithm ASSIGN in predicting cardiovascular disease in Italian patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Review in Clinical rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- External validation of the accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction tools in psoriatic disease: a UK Biobank study.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Article
- Increased Cardiovascular Risk in Psoriatic Arthritis: Results From a Case-Control Monocentric Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Ankylosing Spondylitis: From Traditional Scores to Machine Learning Assessment.Rheumatology and therapy · 2020Article
- Experimental and Investigational Pharmacotherapy for Psoriatic Arthritis: Drugs of the Future.Journal of experimental pharmacology · 2020Review
- Late-Onset and Elderly Psoriatic Arthritis: Clinical Aspects and Management.Drugs & aging · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increased cardiovascular (CV) risk is one of the major challenges in the management of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Recently, EULAR suggested to adapt the already available CV risk algorithms with a 1.5 multiplication factor in all the patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but it is still uncertain if this adaptation could also be applied to patients with PsA. This study aims to evaluate the performance and calibration of the CV risk algorithm ASSIGN and its adaptations for RA (ASSIGN-RA) and according to EULAR recommendations in a cohort of patients with PsA (ASSIGN*1.5). Prospectively, collected data from two Italian cohorts has been analyzed. The discriminatory ability for CV risk prediction was assessed using the areas under the ROC curves. Calibration between predicted and observed events was assessed by Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) test and calibration plots. For each algorithm, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for low- to high-risk cut-off (20%). One hundred fifty-five patients were enrolled with an observation of 1550 patient/years. Area under the ROC were 0.8179 (95% CI 0.72014 to 0.91558) for ASSIGN, 0.8160 (95% CI 0.71661 to 0.91529) for ASSIGN-RA, and 0.8179 (95% CI 0.72014 to 0.91558) for ASSIGN*1.5. HL tests did not demonstrate poor model fit for none of the algorithms. Discriminative ability and calibration were not improved by adaptation of the algorithms according to EULAR recommendations. Up to 20% of CV events occurred in patients at "low risk". No difference in performance has been observed between ASSIGN, Progetto CUORE, and QRISK2. ASSIGN could represent a useful tool in predicting CV risk in patients with PsA. Adaptation for RA or according to EULAR recommendations did not show any further improvement in performance and calibration.
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.