ArticleAtherosclerosis2021
Comparative performance of the two pooled cohort equations for predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Article in Atherosclerosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- CHG index and ePWV jointly predict cardiovascular disease risk: findings from the CHARLS cohort.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Association of Original and Revised Pooled Cohort Equations With Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Mortality.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Performance of contemporary cardiovascular risk stratification scores in Brazil: an evaluation in the ELSA-Brasil study.Open heart · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMultivariable algorithms have been developed to predict the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to identify high-risk patients. Shortly after the introduction of the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), a systematic overestimation of risk was identified. As such, a revised PCE was proposed to more accurately assess ASCVD risk. This study aims to compare the accuracy of both PCE in predicting ASCVD risk within a large, real-world patient sample in the US.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study identified 20,843 patients aged between 40 and 75 years with no previous ASCVD in an academic healthcare system. Model fit, calibration, and discrimination were compared between PCE using Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Hosmer-Lemeshow test, area under the ROC curves (AUC), Brier score, and precision-recall analysis. In addition, we examined race and sex subgroups for effect modification.
resultsBoth PCE showed poor calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ
conclusionsIn this single center analysis, both PCE had poor calibration and discrimination of ASCVD risk in a large, real-world patient sample followed up for over 2 years. There was no evidence of improvement in the accuracy of the revised PCE in assessing the risk of ASCVD in relation to the AHA/ACC PCE.
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.