ArticleEuropean journal of preventive cardiology2024
Validation of the European SCORE2 models in a Canadian primary care cohort.
Article in European journal of preventive cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Independent external validation and head-to-head comparison of guideline-recommended CVD risk prediction models.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Risk prediction for individual patients and the pitfalls of selecting an optimal prediction model: do not judge a model by its c-statistic.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Independent external validation of the LIFE-HF clinical prediction model using the GUIDE-IT trial.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Regional variations in cardiovascular risk predictions: a comparative analysis of Framingham, SCORE2, and WHO models across 53 countries.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- SCORE2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP): Validation and Added Value of Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in a French Cohort.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Implications of five different risk models in primary prevention guidelines.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Observational
- Agreement Between Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Models (SCORE2, Framingham, ASCVD-2013, and SCORE2-OP) in Adults Aged 70 Years or Older: A Population-Based Study.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2025Article
- Correlation and Agreement Between the SCORE2 and PREVENT 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Scores: Insights from Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Remnant cholesterol, but not other cholesterol parameters, is associated with gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant women: a prospective cohort study.Journal of translational medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsSystematic Coronary Risk Evaluation Model 2 (SCORE2) was recently developed to predict atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Europe. Whether these models could be used outside of Europe is not known. The objective of this study was to test the validity of SCORE2 in a large Canadian cohort. METHODS AND
resultsA primary care cohort of persons with routinely collected electronic medical record data from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014, in Ontario, Canada, was used for validation. The SCORE2 models for younger persons (YP) were applied to 57 409 individuals aged 40-69 while the models for older persons (OPs) were applied to 9885 individuals 70-89 years of age. Five-year ASCVD predictions from both the uncalibrated and low-risk region recalibrated SCORE2 models were evaluated. The C-statistic for SCORE2-YP was 0.74 in women and 0.69 in men. The uncalibrated SCORE2-YP overestimated risk by 17% in women and underestimated by 2% in men. In contrast, the low-risk region recalibrated model demonstrated worse calibration, overestimating risk by 100% in women and 36% in men. The C-statistic for SCORE2-OP was 0.64 and 0.62 in older women and men, respectively. The uncalibrated SCORE2-OP overestimated risk by more than 100% in both sexes. The low-risk region recalibrated model demonstrated improved calibration but still overestimated risk by 60% in women and 13% in men.
conclusionThe performance of SCORE2 to predict ASCVD risk in Canada varied by age group and depended on whether regional calibration was applied. This underscores the necessity for validation assessment of SCORE2 prior to implementation in new jurisdictions.
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.