ArticlePloS one2020
Agreement between cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools: An application to the United Arab Emirates population.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- External validation of the American heart association's PREVENT equations in predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk among Arab women and men: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- A cross-sectional survey on public awareness of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), preventive practices, and perceived barriers in the UAE.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Towards artificial intelligence-based disease prediction algorithms that comprehensively leverage and continuously learn from real-world clinical tabular data systems.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Assessing adherence to treatment guidelines and complications among atrial fibrillation patients in the United Arab Emirates.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- The Pandemic of Coronary Heart Disease in the Middle East and North Africa: What Clinicians Need to Know.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2023Review
- Cardiovascular health research priorities in the United Arab Emirates.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Distributions and burden of coronary calcium in asymptomatic Saudi patients referred to computed tomography.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
- Comparison of Predicted Cardiovascular Risk Profiles by Different CVD Risk-Scoring Algorithms between HIV-1-Infected and Uninfected Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study in Tanzania.HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvidence regarding the performance of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment tools is limited in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Therefore, we assessed the agreement between various externally validated CVD risk assessment tools in the UAE.
methodsA secondary analysis of the Abu Dhabi Screening Program for Cardiovascular Risk Markers (AD-SALAMA) data, a large population-based cross-sectional survey conducted in Abu Dhabi, UAE during the period 2009 until 2015, was performed in July 2019. The analysis included 2,621 participants without type 2 Diabetes and without history of cardiovascular diseases. The CVD risk assessment tools included in the analysis were the World Health Organization for Middle East and North Africa Region (WHO-MENA), the systematic coronary risk evaluation for high risk countries (SCORE-H), the pooled cohort risk equations for white (PCRE-W) and African Americans (PCRE-AA), the national cholesterol education program Framingham risk score (FRAM-ATP), and the laboratory Framingham risk score (FRAM-LAB).
resultsThe overall concordance coefficient was 0.50. The agreement between SCORE-H and PCRE-W, PCRE-AA, FRAM-LAB, FRAM-ATP and WHO-MENA, were 0.47, 0.39, 0.0.25, 0.42 and 0.18, respectively. PCRE-AA classified the highest proportion of participants into high-risk category of CVD (16.4%), followed by PCRE-W (13.6%), FRAM-LAB (6.9%), SCORE-H (4.5%), FRAM-ATP (2.7%), and WHO-MENA (0.4%).
conclusionsWe found a poor agreement between various externally validated CVD risk assessment tools when applied to a large data collected in the UAE. This poses a challenge to choose any of these tools for clinical decision-making regarding the primary prevention of CVD in the country.
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.