ArticleAnnals of occupational and environmental medicine2019
Comparison of risk-assessment tools for cardio-cerebrovascular diseases (CVD) in male shipyard workers: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Annals of occupational and environmental medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency and National Health Insurance Service's cardio-cerebrovascular diseases risk-assessment tools using data from one hospital's health checkups.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodic revision of assessment tools is essential to ensure risk assessment reliability and validity. Despite the recent revision of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) 2018, there is no evidence showing that the revision is superior to other cardio-cerebrovascular diseases (CVDs) risk-assessment tools for workplace health management. We conducted a comparative analysis using the Framingham risk score (FRS) as a gold standard to identify the most relevant CVDs risk-assessment tool for workplace health management.
methodsWe included 4,460 shipyard workers who had undergone a workers' health examination during January-December 2016. Risk levels for CVDs were calculated based on the FRS, KOSHA 2013, KOSHA 2017, KOSHA 2018 (2 methods), National Health Screening Program health risk appraisal (NHS HRA) 2017, and NHS HRA 2018. Study participants were categorized into low-risk, moderate-risk, or high-risk groups. Sensitivity, specificity, correlation, and agreement of each risk-assessment tool were calculated compared with the FRS as a gold standard. For statistical analyses, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and the linearly weighted kappa coefficient were calculated.
resultsSensitivity of the risk assessments was highest in the KOSHA 2018 (health risk appraisal [HRA]). The FRS showed correlation coefficients of 0.354 with the KOSHA 2013, 0.396 with the KOSHA 2017, 0.386 with the KOSHA 2018, 0.505 with the KOSHA 2018 (HRA), 0.288 with the NHS HRA 2017, and 0.622 with the NHS HRA 2018. Kappa values, calculated to examine the agreement in relation to the KOSHA 2013, KOSHA 2017, KOSHA 2018, KOSHA 2018 (HRA), NHS HRA 2017, and NHS HRA 2018 with the FRS, were 0.268, 0.322, 0.352, 0.136, 0.221, and 0.559, respectively.
conclusionsThe NHS HRA 2018 risk calculation method is a useful risk-assessment tool for CVDs, but only when appropriate classification criteria are applied. In order to enhance the risk-group identification capability of the KOSHA guideline, we propose to apply the classification criteria set in this study based on the risk group definition of the 2018 Korean Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension instead of the current classification criteria of the KOSHA 2018.
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.