ArticlePeerJ2020
Evaluating Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) risk scores for participants with known CVD and non-CVD in a multiracial/ethnic Caribbean sample.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Comparison of framingham risk model, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk model, and assign risk model in detecting sub-clinical atherosclerosis among DIMAMO residents, Limpopo province, South Africa.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular disease risk estimation among slums residents of Lucknow using QRISK3 calculator.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Article
- The Polypill: A New Alternative in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Twenty years on from the introduction of the high risk strategy for stroke and cardiovascular disease prevention: a systematic scoping review.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of cardiovascular diseases risk calculators for CVDs prevention and management: scoping review.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular Disease (CVD) risk prediction models have been useful in estimating if individuals are at low, intermediate, or high risk, of experiencing a CVD event within some established time frame, usually 10 years. Central to this is the concern in Trinidad and Tobago of using pre-existing CVD risk prediction methods, based on populations in the developed world (e.g. ASSIGN, Framingham and QRISK
methodA survey was completed by 778 participants, 526 persons with no prior CVD, and 252 who previously reported a CVD event. Lifestyle and biometric data was collected from non-CVD participants, while for CVD participants, medical records were used to collect data at the first instance of CVD. The performances of three CVD risk prediction models (ASSIGN, Framingham and QRISK
resultsAll three models (ASSIGN, Framingham and QRISK
conclusionThe ASSIGN, Framingham and QRISK
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.