ArticlePloS one2020
Waist circumference does not improve established cardiovascular disease risk prediction modeling.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- National Heart Center/Saudi Heart Association 2025 Guidelines for Cardiovascular Diseases Prevention and Risk Assessment.Saudi medical journal · 2026Guideline
- Beyond Single Anthropometric Measures: Integrating Waist Circumference and Body Mass Index to Stratify Obesity-Related Health Risk.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Comparative associations and incremental predictive value of cardiometabolic and inflammatory indices for short- to mid-term cardiovascular disease risk in two Chinese cohorts.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Waist, waist-height-ratio vs body mass index and the risks of multiple diseases: a cohort study with replication.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite considerable evidence demonstrating that waist circumference (WC) is independently associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or all-cause mortality, whether the addition of WC improves risk prediction models is unclear. The objective was to evaluate the improvement in risk prediction with the addition of WC, alone or in combination with BMI, to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and a population specific model. 34,377 men and 9,477 women aged 20 to 79 years who completed a baseline examination at the Cooper Clinic (Dallas, TX) during 1977-2003 and enrolled in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study (ACLS). WC was measured at the level of the umbilicus and expressed as a continuous variable. Deaths among participants were identified using the National Center for Health Statistics National Death Index. A total of 728 fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events occurred over a mean follow-up period of 13.1 ± 7.5 years. WC was significantly higher in CVD decedents (P = .002). The FRS C-statistic for fatal CVD in men was 0.836 (0.816-0.855) and 0.883 (0.851-0.915) in women. The addition of WC did not improve the C-statistic in men (0.831 (0.809-0.853)) or women (0.883 (0.850-0.916)). Similar findings were observed for non-fatal CVD and all-cause mortality, and when WC was added to a population specific model. Upon adding WC, the net-reclassification index was 0.024 with an integrated discrimination improvement of -0.0004. The addition of WC, alone or in combination with BMI, did not substantively improve risk prediction for CVD or all-cause mortality compared to the Framingham Risk Score or a population specific model.
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.