ArticleBMC research notes2020
Validation of the REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) prediction model for recurrent cardiovascular disease among United Arab Emirates Nationals.
Article in BMC research notes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2023Observational
- Risk Prediction of Cardiovascular Events by Exploration of Molecular Data with Explainable Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPrediction models assist health-care providers in making patient care decisions. This study aimed to externally validate the REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) prediction model for recurrent cardiovascular disease (CVD) among the Emirati nationals.
resultsThere are 204 patients with established CVD, attending Tawam Hospital from April 1, 2008. The data retrieved from electronic medical records for these patients were used to externally validate the REACH prediction model. Baseline results showed the following: 77.0% were men, 69.6% were diagnosed with coronary artery disease, and 87.3% have a single vascular bed involvement. The risk prediction model for cardiovascular mortality performed moderately well [C-statistic 0.74 (standard error 0.11)] in identifying those at high risk for cardiovascular death, whereas for recurrent CVD events, it performed poorly in predicting the next CVD event [C-statistic 0.63 (standard error 0.06)], over a 20-month follow-up. The calibration curve showed poor agreement indicating that the REACH model underestimated both recurrent CVD risk and cardiovascular death. With recalibration, the REACH cardiovascular death prediction model could potentially be used to identify patients who would benefit from aggressive risk reduction.
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.