ArticleOpen heart2022
Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2.
Article in Open heart, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Polypill Therapy is the Key to Improving Treatment Adherence in Comorbid Patients with High Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond SCORE2: Rethinking Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in a Very-High-Risk European Setting-A Narrative Review and Proposal of the ROMA-CV Algorithm for Romania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Recognition, treatment, and control of hypertension in the Danish population-based Lolland-Falster Health Study.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- The relationship between cardiovascular risk level determined by SCORE2 and cardiovascular disease risk awareness and health literacy in individuals aged 40-69: a cross-sectional study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Treatment patterns and adherence to lipid-lowering therapy, LDL-C control, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization in treated patients with hypercholesterolemia at high cardiovascular risk in Israel: a retrospective database study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- The CARDIOLIPID Plan: A Cardiovascular Risk-centred Implementation Framework for the Diagnosis and Management of Dyslipidaemia: Experts' Proposal.European cardiology · 2026Review
- CardioGAP+: bridging the gap between patient identification and therapy implementation in cardiovascular risk.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- SCORE2 Outperforms Pol-SCORE in Detecting Increased Cardiovascular Risk.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2025Article
- Epidemiological Analysis of Cardiovascular Diseases with Consideration of Risk Factors, Health Awareness, and Preventive Behaviors in Civilian and Military Populations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Improving cardiovascular risk stratification: the role of abdominal obesity in predicting MACEs.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Globorisk, SCORE2, and PREVENT in the Stratification of Cardiovascular Risk and its Relationship with End-Organ Damage Among Adults With Arterial Hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Article
- Unmasking the Silent Threat: Prevalence of Cardiovascular Risk Factors in MS Patients in Bucharest, Romania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Discrepancies Between Physician-Perceived and Calculated Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Prevention: Implications for LDL-C Target Achievement and Appropriate Lipid-Lowering Therapy.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2025Article
- Exploring the link between self-rated poor oral health and cardiovascular risk: a cross-sectional study using SCORE2.BMC oral health · 2025Observational
- Thyroid dysfunction in women with a menopausal syndrome.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2024Article
- Validation of SCORE2 on a sample from the Russian population and adaptation for the very high cardiovascular disease risk region.PloS one · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular risk profile with SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP: comparing Portugal, Spain, Italy, and France using the new European predictive models.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- SCORE2 is superior to SCORE in predicting the presence of carotid plaques and intima-media thickness in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a cross-sectional study using carotid ultrasound.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024Article
- [Luces y sombras de la Guía Europea esc-2021 de Prevención de la Enfermedad Cardiovascular en la Práctica Clínica.]Revista espanola de salud publica · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCardiovascular risk estimation is an essential step to reduce the onset of adverse cardiovascular events. For this purpose, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk chart method was used in Europe. In 2021, the SCORE2 algorithm was released, bringing changes in the calculation methodology. This study assessed and compared the level of cardiovascular risk in a population aged 40-65 years using the SCORE and SCORE2 methodologies.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included a total of 85 802 patients in Hungary. Cardiovascular risk levels were determined using the SCORE and SCORE2 risk estimation methods.
resultsUsing SCORE, 97.7% of men aged 40-50 years were classified as low-moderate risk, which decreased to 32.4% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 100% of women aged 40-50 years were classified as low-moderate risk, compared with 75.6% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 36.8% of men aged 50-65 years were classified as high risk and 14.8% as very high risk, and 5.4% of women aged 50-65 years were classified as high risk and 0.5% as very high risk. In this age group, using SCORE2, 50% of men were classified as high risk and 25.8% as very high risk, and 38.8% of women were classified as high risk and 11.9% as very high risk.
conclusionsWhen the SCORE2 method was used instead of SCORE 43.91% of the whole population were classified with a higher level of risk, which represents a radical increase in the number of patients with high or very high cardiovascular 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.