ReviewPreventive medicine reports2022
Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of cardiovascular markers and diseases using retinal fundus images and deep learning: a systematic scoping review.European heart journal. Digital health · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically review the use of clinical prediction models (CPMs) in personalised lifestyle interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for articles describing relevant studies published up to August 1, 2021. These were supplemented with items retrieved via screening references of citations and cited by references. In total, 32 studies were included. Nineteen different CPMs were used to guide the intervention. Most frequently, a version of the Framingham risk score was used. The CPM was used to inform the intensity of the intervention in five studies (16 %), and the intervention's type in 31 studies (97 %). The CPM was supplemented with relative risk estimates for additional risk factors in three studies (9 %), and relative risk estimates for intervention effects in four (13 %). In addition to the estimated risk, the personalisation was determined using criteria based on univariable risk factors in 18 studies (56 %), a lifestyle score in three (9 %), and a physical examination index in one (3 %). We noted insufficient detail in reporting regarding the CPM's use in 20 studies (63 %). In 15 studies (47 %), the primary outcome was a CPM estimate. A statistically significant effect favouring the intervention to the comparator arm was reported in four out of eight analyses (50 %), and a statistically significant improvement compared to baseline in five out of seven analyses (71 %). Due to the design of the included studies, the effect of the use of CPMs is still unclear. Therefore, we see a need for future research.
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.