Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34031448›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Agreement between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based Framingham risk score in Southern Iran.

Fatemeh Rezaei, Mozhgan Seif, Abdullah Gandomkar, Mohammad Reza Fattahi, Jafar Hasanzadeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Healthcare Professionals in Iran.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Fatemeh RezaeiStudent Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mozhgan SeifDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Abdullah GandomkarNon-Communicable Disease Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mohammad Reza FattahiGastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Jafar HasanzadehResearch Centre for Health Sciences, Institute of Health, School of Health, Department of Epidemiology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. jhasanzadeh13@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Framingham 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is measured by laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based models. This study aimed to determine the agreement between these two models in a large population in Southern Iran. In this study, the baseline data of 8138 individuals participated in the Pars cohort study were used. The participants had no history of cardiovascular disease or stroke. For the laboratory-based risk model, scores were determined based on age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and treatment status, total cholesterol, and High-Density Lipoprotein. For the non-laboratory-based risk model, scores were determined based on age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, SBP and treatment status, and Body Mass Index. The agreement between these two models was determined by Bland Altman plots for agreement between the scores and kappa statistic for agreement across the risk groups. Bland Altman plots showed that the limits of agreement were reasonable for females < 60 years old (95% CI: -2.27-4.61%), but of concern for those ≥ 60 years old (95% CI: -3.45-9.67%), males < 60 years old (95% CI: -2.05-8.91%), and males ≥ 60 years old (95% CI: -3.01-15.23%). The limits of agreement were wider for males ≥ 60 years old in comparison to other age groups. According to the risk groups, the agreement was better in females than in males, which was moderate for females < 60 years old (kappa = 0.57) and those ≥ 60 years old (kappa = 0.51). The agreement was fair for the males < 60 years old (kappa = 0.39) and slight for those ≥ 60 years old (Kappa = 0.14). The results showed that in overall participants, the agreement between the two risk scores was moderate according to risk grouping. Therefore, our results suggest that the non-laboratory-based risk model can be used in resource-limited settings where individuals cannot afford laboratory tests and extensive laboratories are not available.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIranLaboratoriesMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34031448
PMCPMC8144380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.