Trial reportBMC research notes2019
External validation of pooled cohort equations using systolic blood pressure intervention trial data.
Trial report in BMC research notes, 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.
- Performance of the American Heart Association PREVENT Cardiovascular Risk Equations in Older Adults.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2025Observational
- Deep learning-based fundus image analysis for cardiovascular disease: a review.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2023Review
- Machine learning derived ECG risk score improves cardiovascular risk assessment in conjunction with coronary artery calcium scoring.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Re-estimation improved the performance of two Framingham cardiovascular risk equations and the Pooled Cohort equations: A nationwide registry analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Insights into Systemic Disease through Retinal Imaging-Based Oculomics.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Review
- Association of Estimated Pulse Wave Velocity With Survival: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT.JAMA network open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is estimated using the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs). However, the accuracy of this tool remains controversial, particularly among patients who are recommended statin therapy according to the ACC/AHA guidelines. We performed external validation of PCEs among patients eligible for statin therapy using data from the systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT).
resultsOur study included 4057 patients from among the 9361 patients in SPRINT. The mean patient age was 64.5 years, and the median predicted 10-year risks of ASCVD were 17.2% and 12.3% for men and women, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 3.3 years, 133 primary events (including 23 cardiovascular deaths) were noted, whereas 304 events were predicted by the PCEs. The PCEs demonstrated poor calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p < 0.001) and overestimated the probability consistently. Additionally, they showed moderate discrimination [area under the curve: 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.69)]. This study demonstrates that PCEs might overestimate the risk of ASCVD in patients who are recommended statin therapy.
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.