ArticleHerz2020
Comparison of MESA of and Framingham risk scores in the prediction of coronary artery disease severity.
Article in Herz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe correlation between cardiovascular risk scoring systems and the severity of coronary artery diseases (CAD) is not clear. The present research aimed to evaluate the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) risk score and Framingham risk score (FRS), using the Gensini score (GS) system as reference, so as to determine which model is better for the prediction of CAD severity.
methodsThis research was a single-center and cross-sectional observational study. In total, 1423 patients were included in our study. Three different groups were formed according to GS: 0 < GS ≤ 22 (low GS group, n = 484); 22 < GS ≤ 42 (intermediate GS group, n = 468); GS > 42 (high GS group, n = 471). Logistic and linear regression analyses were carried out to explore the relationship between the risk score models and the GS. The performance of the risk models was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis.
resultsThe MESA risk score and the FRS both had a statistically significant power for the prediction of CAD severity (MESA area under curve: 0.630; FRS area under curve: 0.613). Furthermore, the MESA had a better performance in predicting the severity (p < 0.05) of CAD compared with the FRS. In the subgroup analysis, the MESA showed a better performance in the male (p < 0.05), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.05), and smoking subgroups (p < 0.05) compared with the FRS.
conclusionThe MESA and FRS predicted the severity of CAD in the Chinese population of this study. Moreover, the MESA had a better performance than the FRS model in predicting the severity of CAD in the overall population as well as in the male, smoking, diabetes, and non-diabetes subgroups.
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.