ArticleHeliyon2023
Agreement between ten-years cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools: An application to Iranian population in Shahedieh Cohort Study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Non-Laboratory-Based and Laboratory-Based Cardiovascular Risk Predictions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
- National program for cardiovascular disease and hypertension in primary healthcare: WHO-PEN program initial scale-up in Iran (IraPEN).BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Congruity between WHO ISH laboratory and non-laboratory-based charts in an urban population in India: A cross-sectional community-based analytical study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Association Between Insulin Regimen and Cardiovascular Risk in Indonesian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Cardiovascular risk-prediction models are efficient primary prevention tools to detect high-risk individuals. The study aims to use three tools to estimate the 10-year risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and investigate their agreement in an Iranian adult population. Methods: The current cross-sectional study was carried out on 8569 adults between 35 and 70 who participated in the first phase of the Shahedieh cohort study in Yazd, Iran, and were free of CVDs (cardiac ischemia or myocardial infarction or stroke). World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) chart, Laboratory-Based (LB) and Non-Laboratory-Based (NLB) Framingham Risk Score (FRS) were used to predict the 10-year risk of developing CVD. The agreement across tools was determined by Kappa. Results: WHO/ISH chart indicated the highest prevalence of low CVD risk for males (96.10%) and females (96.50%), while NLB Framingham had the highest prevalence of high CVD risk for males (19.40%) and females (5.30%). In total, there was substantial agreement between both FRS models (Kappa = o.70), while there was a slight agreement between WHO/ISH and both FRS tools. For under 60 years males and females, substantial agreements were observed between FRS methods (kappa = 0.73 and kappa = 0.68). For males and females over 60 years, this agreement was moderate and substantial, respectively (kappa = 0.54 and kappa = 0.64). WHO/ISH and LB Framingham model had substantial agreement for over 60 years females (kappa = 0.61). Conclusions: Framingham models classified more participants in the high-risk category than WHO/ISH. Due to the lethality of CVDs, categorizing individuals based on FRS can ensure that most of the real high-risk people are detected. Remarkable agreement between FRS methods in all sex-age groups suggested using the NLB Framingham model as a primary screening tool, especially in a shortage of resources condition.
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.