ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2020
Preventive Cardiology and Risk Assessment: Beyond LDL.
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- LDL Cholesterol Variability Impacts the Prognosis of Patients with Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease: A Real-World Italian Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Morphologies and composition changes in nonculprit subclinical atherosclerosis in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent long-term statin therapy.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
- Wall Shear Stress Alteration: a Local Risk Factor of Atherosclerosis.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2022Review
- Lipid Lowering Drugs: Present Status and Future Developments.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2021Review
- High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein and Carotid Intima Media Thickness as Markers of Subclinical Inflammation and Atherosclerosis in Pediatric Patients with Hypercholesterolemia.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewRisk assessment is the foundational cornerstone for cardiovascular prevention. The goal of this review is to apprise the reader of the latest evidence and guideline-based stepwise method for clinical risk assessment for future atherosclerotic events. We also discuss caveats to the current approach and review future directions including the promise of precision medicine. RECENT
findingsThe most recent cholesterol and prevention guidelines improve upon the widely used pooled cohort equations by incorporating risk-enhancing factors to further personalize risk assessment. For those in whom uncertainty remains, there is mounting evidence for using the coronary calcium score to uncover subclinical disease to either up- or down-classify risk. Although still in its infancy, progress in high-throughput molecular analysis is edging the field closer to more precise risk stratification. Atherosclerosis is the leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. Emphasis on cardiovascular prevention is essential to mitigate the burden of disease. Here, we introduce a "4 + 2" paradigm for approaching preventive cardiology based on recent guidelines. Risk stratification is performed in four steps: qualitative risk approximation to initiate counseling and education, quantitative risk estimation based on a validated model, personalization with risk-enhancing factors, and measurement of coronary artery calcium score in select patients. The two foundational principles of preventive management are to promote a healthy lifestyle in all and to escalate preventive pharmacotherapy based on increasing risk. Shared decision-making remains central throughout this process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32772179What 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.