ArticleBMJ open2020
External validation and clinical usefulness of three commonly used cardiovascular risk prediction scores in an Emirati population: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06195566 (Physics Informed Machine Learning-based Prediction and Reversion of Impaired Fasting Glucose Management), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Physics Informed Machine Learning-based Prediction and Reversion of Impaired Fasting Glucose Management
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Expert consensus on Lipoprotein(a) in the Gulf countries: Navigating cardiovascular risk and therapeutic advances.Atherosclerosis plus · 2026Article
- Article
- External validation of the American heart association's PREVENT equations in predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk among Arab women and men: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Unraveling the future productivity burden of cardiovascular disease in Qatar: Investigating the modifiable risk factors control in type 2 diabetes.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- Exploring the Current Tools in Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in the Middle East and the Need for Region-Specific Models - A Scoping Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Review
- External validation of a cardiovascular risk model for Omani patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- External validation of the ACC/AHA ASCVD risk score in a Colombian population cohort.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a novel 10-year cardiovascular risk prediction nomogram for the United Arab Emirates national population.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Distributions and burden of coronary calcium in asymptomatic Saudi patients referred to computed tomography.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models are useful tools for identifying those at high risk of cardiovascular events in a population. No studies have evaluated the performance of such risk models in an Arab population. Therefore, in this study, the accuracy and clinical usefulness of two commonly used Framingham-based risk models and the 2013 Pooled Cohort Risk Equation (PCE) were assessed in a United Arab Emirates (UAE) national population.
designA 10-year retrospective cohort study.
settingOutpatient clinics at a tertiary care hospital, Al-Ain, UAE.
participantsThe study cohort included 1041 UAE nationals aged 30-79 who had no history of CVD at baseline. Patients were followed until 31 December 2019. Eligible patients were grouped into the PCE and the Framingham validation cohorts. EXPOSURE: The 10-year predicted risk for CVD for each patient was calculated using the 2008 Framingham risk model, the 2008 office-based Framingham risk model, and the 2013 PCE model. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness of the three models for predicting 10-year cardiovascular risk were assessed.
resultsIn women, the 2013 PCE model showed marginally better discrimination (C-statistic: 0.77) than the 2008 Framingham models (C-statistic: 0.74-0.75), whereas all three models showed moderate discrimination in men (C-statistic: 0.69‒0.70). All three models overestimated CVD risk in both men and women, with higher levels of predicted risk. The 2008 Framingham risk model (high-risk threshold of 20%) classified only 46% of women who subsequently developed incident CVD within 10 years as high risk. The 2013 PCE risk model (high-risk threshold of 7.5%) classified 74% of men who did not develop a cardiovascular event as high risk.
conclusionsNone of the three models is accurate for predicting cardiovascular risk in UAE nationals. The performance of the models could potentially be improved by recalibration.
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.