ArticlePloS one2020
Performance of risk prediction scores for cardiovascular mortality in older persons: External validation of the SCORE OP and appraisal.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Development of a prediction model for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in older adults taking into account AZGP1.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEuropean guidelines recommend the use of the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) to assess 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular events in people aged 40 to 65. The SCORE Older Persons (SCORE OP, 5-year and 10-year versions) was recently developed for people aged 65 or older. We assessed the performance of these risk scores in predicting fatal cardiovascular events in older persons in Berlin. METHODS AND
findingsData from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), a prospective, population-based study of older persons recruited from a German public health insurance company database were used. 1,657 participants aged 70 or older without reported previous myocardial infarction were included. We assessed calibration by comparing predicted risks to observed (for 5-year versions, 5y) or projected (for 10-year versions) probabilities. During follow-up (median: 4.8 years), 118 cardiovascular deaths occurred. The calibration assessment of the SCORE OP-H 5y and SCORE OP-L 5y equations revealed 2.1- and 1.5-fold overestimation. Comparing 10-year versions, the SCORE OP showed better discrimination ability compared to the SCORE (C-indices of around 0.80 compared to 0.72) and the SCORE for high-risk regions showed the best calibration (chi-square = 29.68). The SCORE OP overestimated the true risk; 519 and 677 events were predicted using the low-risk and high-risk region SCORE OP equations compared to 397 to 399 events projected based on BIS follow-up data (predicted/actual ratios of 1.3 and 1.7).
conclusionsGiven the low transportability of the SCORE OP observed in our population, we caution against its use in routine clinical practice until further information is available to avoid possible overtreatment among older persons in Berlin.
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.