ArticleBMC psychiatry2023
Cardiovascular risk assessment methods yield unequal risk predictions: a large cross-sectional study in psychiatric secondary care outpatients.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Predicting cardiovascular disease in patients with mental illness using machine learning.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Article
- Shared and unique characteristics of metabolic syndrome in psychotic disorders: a review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with a mental illness are more likely to develop, and die from, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), necessitating optimal CVD-risk (CVR)-assessment to enable early detection and treatment. Whereas psychiatrists use the metabolic syndrome (MetS)-concept to estimate CVR, GPs use absolute risk-models. Additionally, two PRIMROSE-models have been specifically designed for patients with severe mental illness. We aimed to assess the agreement in risk-outcomes between these CVR-methods.
methodsTo compare risk-outcomes across the various CVR-methods, we used somatic information of psychiatric outpatients from the PHAMOUS-, and MOPHAR-database, aged 40-70 years, free of past or current CVD and diabetes. We investigated: (1) the degree-of-agreement between categorical assessments (i.e. MetS-status vs. binary risk-categories); (2) non-parametric correlations between the number of MetS-criteria and absolute risks; and (3) strength-of-agreement between absolute risks.
resultsSeven thousand twenty-nine measurements of 3509 PHAMOUS-patients, and 748 measurements of 748 MOPHAR-patients, were included. There was systematic disagreement between the categorical CVR-assessments (all p < 0.036). Only MetS-status versus binary Framingham-assessment had a fair strength-of-agreement (κ = 0.23-0.28). The number of MetS-criteria and Framingham-scores, as well as MetS-criteria and PRIMROSE lipid-scores, showed a moderate-strong correlation (τ = 0.25-0.34). Finally, only the continuous PRIMROSE desk and lipid-outcomes showed moderate strength-of-agreement (ρ = 0.91).
conclusionsThe varying methods for CVR-assessment yield unequal risk predictions, and, consequently, carry the risk of significant disparities regarding treatment initiation in psychiatric patients. Considering the significantly increased health-risks in psychiatric patients, CVR-models should be recalibrated to the psychiatric population from adolescence onwards, and uniformly implemented by health care providers.
trial registrationThe MOPHAR research has been prospectively registered with the Netherlands Trial Register on 19th of November 2014 (NL4779).
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.