Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2019
A cardiovascular risk prediction model for older people: Development and validation in a primary care population.
Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- A cardiovascular risk prediction model for older people: Development and validation in a primary care population.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Trial
- Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of elderly patients with coronary artery disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Older Adults.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- Classification rule for ten year MACE Risk in primary care tarragona older adults with type2 diabetes: a CHAID decision-tree analysis.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Scoping review of the use of multimorbidity variables in cardiovascular disease risk prediction.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a five-year cardiovascular risk assessment tool for Asian adults aged 75 years and older.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- The Reasons for the Low Uptake of New Antidiabetic Drugs with Cardiovascular Effects-A Family Doctor Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A prediction model for the impact of environmental and genetic factors on cardiovascular events: development in a salt substitutes population.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Prediction of cardiovascular events from systolic or diastolic blood pressure.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
- External validation of the BEST-J score and a new risk prediction model for ESD delayed bleeding in patients with early gastric cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- All-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in a Spanish nonagenarian cohort according to type 2 diabetes mellitus status and established cardiovascular disease.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Association between brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in different age groups.Clinical cardiology · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular risk and aging: the need for a more comprehensive understanding.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2021Article
- Frailty Phenotype: Evidence of Both Physical and Mental Health Components in Community-Dwelling Early-Old Adults.Clinical interventions in aging · 2020Article
- Cardiovascular risk assessment in elderly individuals without overt CVD disease. Could traditional risk factors fit in all ages?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular risk prediction is mainly based on traditional risk factors that have been validated in middle-aged populations. However, associations between these risk factors and cardiovascular disease (CVD) attenuate with increasing age. Therefore, for older people the authors developed and internally validated risk prediction models for fatal and non-fatal CVD, (re)evaluated the predictive value of traditional and new factors, and assessed the impact of competing risks of non-cardiovascular death. Post hoc analyses of 1811 persons aged 70-78 year and free from CVD at baseline from the preDIVA study (Prevention of Dementia by Intensive Vascular care, 2006-2015), a primary care-based trial that included persons free from dementia and conditions likely to hinder successful long-term follow-up, were performed. In 2017-2018, Cox-regression analyses were performed for a model including seven traditional risk factors only, and a model to assess incremental predictive ability of the traditional and eleven new factors. Analyses were repeated accounting for competing risk of death, using Fine-Gray models. During an average of 6.2 years of follow-up, 277 CVD events occurred. Age, sex, smoking, and type 2 diabetes mellitus were traditional predictors for CVD, whereas total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were not. Of the eleven new factors, polypharmacy and apathy symptoms were predictors. Discrimination was moderate (concordance statistic 0.65). Accounting for competing risks resulted in slightly smaller predicted absolute risks. In conclusion, we found, SBP, HDL, and total cholesterol no longer predict CVD in older adults, whereas polypharmacy and apathy symptoms are two new relevant predictors. Building on the selected risk factors in this study may improve CVD prediction in older adults and facilitate targeting preventive interventions to those at high 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.