Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34692382›Full record

ArticleGlobal heart2021

Developing Non-Laboratory Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Charts and Validating Laboratory and Non-Laboratory-Based Models.

Razieh Hassannejad, Marjan Mansourian, Hamidreza Marateb, Mohammad Reza Mohebian, Thomas Andrew Gaziano, Rodney T Jackson, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Nizal Sarrafzadegan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global heart, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular disease risk among hypertensive patients in Africa.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. First Iranian guidelines for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of hyperlipidemia in adults.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 8 countries.

Razieh HassannejadIsfahan Cardiovascular Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, IR.
Marjan MansourianDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, IR.
Hamidreza MaratebBiomedical Engineering Department, Engineering faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, IR.
Mohammad Reza MohebianDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A9, CA.
Thomas Andrew GazianoCardiovascular Medicine Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, US.
Rodney T JacksonEpidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.
Emanuele Di AngelantonioCardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nizal SarrafzadeganIsfahan Cardiovascular Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, IR.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRBrigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Isfahan · IRUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/12/2/29428British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Developing simplified risk assessment model based on non-laboratory risk factors that could determine cardiovascular risk as accurately as laboratory-based one can be valuable, particularly in developing countries where there are limited resources. Objective: To develop a simplified non-laboratory cardiovascular disease risk assessment chart based on previously reported laboratory-based chart and evaluate internal and external validation, and recalibration of both risk models to assess the performance of risk scoring tools in other population. Methods: A 10-year non-laboratory-based risk prediction chart was developed for fatal and non-fatal CVD using Cox Proportional Hazard regression. Data from the Isfahan Cohort Study (ICS), a population-based study among 6504 adults aged ≥ 35 years, followed-up for at least ten years was used for the non-laboratory-based model derivation. Participants were followed up until the occurrence of CVD events. Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS) data was used to evaluate the external validity of both non-laboratory and laboratory risk assessment models in other populations rather than one used in the model derivation. Results: The discrimination and calibration analysis of the non-laboratory model showed the following values of Harrell's C: 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.74), and Nam-D'Agostino χ Conclusions: Our simplified risk assessment model based on non-laboratory risk factors could determine cardiovascular risk as accurately as laboratory-based one. This approach can provide simple risk assessment tool where laboratory testing is unavailable, inconvenient, and costly.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesAdultCohort StudiesHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansIranLaboratoriesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCardiovascular DiseaseIsfahan Cohort StudyLaboratory-based modelNon-laboratory-based modelrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34692382
PMCPMC8428313
OpenAlexW3196624767

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.