ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of public health2024
Comparison of Laboratory and Non-Laboratory-Based 2019 World Health Organization Cardiovascular Risk Charts in the Bhutanese Population.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Non-Laboratory-Based and Laboratory-Based Cardiovascular Risk Predictions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
- 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
- Determinants of hypertension among Bhutanese adults: evidence from a national WHO STEPS survey.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessment of 10-year cardiovascular disease risk in Bangladesh: a comparative analysis of laboratory and non-laboratory-based WHO risk prediction models.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Risk prediction for cardiovascular related diseases using PRS and EHR in the Framingham Heart Study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of color-coded cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk charts for CVD management. This study evaluated the agreement between the laboratory and non-laboratory 10-year CVD risks based on 2019 WHO CVD risk-prediction charts. The agreement of CVD risk scores among 40- to 69-year-old Bhutanese population stratified by gender and age groups (<60 and ≥60 years) was determined via weighted kappa statistics. In the general population, there was substantial agreement between the two CVD risk score charts for all ages and <60 years but a moderate agreement for participants aged ≥60 years. In males, substantial agreement was observed in all ages and in <60 years and moderate agreement in ≥60 years. In females, both the predictions showed substantial agreement in all ages and <60, but a moderate agreement for ≥60 years. The non-laboratory-based risk charts can be used interchangeably with laboratory-based charts for predicting 10-year CVD risk in resource-constrained countries like Bhutan.
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.