ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2022
Validation of Cardiovascular Risk Prediction by the Arriba Instrument.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sports Preparticipation Evaluation for Healthy Adults: A Consensus-Based German Guideline.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Guideline
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Higher Tobacco Pack-Years in Patients with Metabolic Comorbidities.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is recommended in cardiovascular prevention guidelines that treatment should be based on overall cardiovascular risk. The arriba instrument has been widely used for this purpose in Germany. The aim of this study is to validate risk prediction by arriba with the aid of morbidity and mortality data from the population- based Study of Health in Pomerania.
methodsIn a longitudinal analysis, the arriba instrument was used to calculate the 10-year overall cardiovascular risk at baseline for subjects who had not sustained any prior cardiovascular event. Cardiovascular event rates were determined from follow-up data, and discrimination and calibration measures for the risk determination algorithm were calculated.
resultsData from 1973 subjects (mean age 51 ± 13 years, 48% men) were included in the analysis. After a median follow-up of 10.9 years, cardiovascular events had occurred in 196 subjects, or 9.8%. The ratio of predicted to observed event rate was 0.8 (95% confidence interval: [0.5; 1.1]), 1.3 [1.0; 1.8], and 1.1 [0.8; 1.4] for subjects at low, intermediate, and high cardiovascular risk, respectively. Arriba underestimated cardiovascular event rates in women and overestimated them in persons aged 30-44 and 45-59. The area under curve was 0.84 [95% CI 0.81; 0.86].
conclusionThe discrimination scores of the arriba instrument resemble those of SCORE-Germany and PROCAM, but a better adjustment to the target population would be desirable. The results support the recommendation of the German Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Counseling in General Practice for the use of the arriba instrument. An unresolved problem is the failure to consider intervention effects, resulting in an overall mild overestimation of risk.
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.