ArticleBMJ open2022
Absolute cardiovascular risk scores and medication use in rural India: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to promote medication adherence for chronic diseases in India: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Association between systemic immune-inflammation index and 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease in the United States (NHANES 1999-2018).Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular risk assessment using non-laboratory based WHO CVD risk prediction chart with respect to hypertension status among older Indian adults: insights from nationally representative survey.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Metabolic Syndrome and Associated Factors in Farmers in Southeastern Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Observational
- Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment of Adults in Mid to Late Life Attending Outpatient Clinics in West Bengal: A Cross-sectional Analysis.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe compared the performance of laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools in a low-income and middle-income country setting, and estimated the use of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications in those deemed at high risk of a cardiovascular event.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingThe study population comprised adult residents (aged ≥18 years) of the Rishi Valley region located in Chittoor District, south-western Andhra Pradesh, India.
participants7935 participants were surveyed between 2012 and 2015. We computed the 10-year cardiovascular risk and undertook pair-to-pair analyses between various risk tools used to predict a fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular event (Framingham Risk Score (FRS), World Health Organization Risk Score (WHO-RS) and Australian Risk Score (ARS)), or a fatal cardiovascular event (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE-high and SCORE-low)). Concordance was assessed by ordinary least-products (OLP) regression (for risk score) and quadratic weighted kappa (κ
resultsOf participants aged 35-74 years, 3.5% had prior cardiovascular disease. The relationships between risk scores were quasi-linear with good agreement between the FRS and ARS (OLP slope=0.96, κ
conclusionsCardiovascular risk prediction tools perform disparately in this setting of disadvantage. Few deemed at high risk were receiving the recommended treatment.
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.