ArticleClinical interventions in aging2024
Comparative Analysis of Three Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction Models in Individuals Aged 75 and Older.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of the Framingham cardiovascular risk score (FRS)/pooled cohort equations (PCE)/China prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk (China-PAR model) in a prospective cohort of Chinese older adults. Patients and Methods: We assessed 717 older adults aged 75-85 years without ASCVD at the baseline from the Sichuan province of China. The participants were followed annually from 2011 to 2021. We obtained the participants' information through the medical records of physical examination and evaluated their 10-year ASCVD risk using FRS, PCE, and China-PAR. We further evaluated the predictive abilities of three assessment models. Results: During the 10-year follow-up, 206 participants developed ASCVD, with an incidence rate of 28.73%. The FRS and China-PAR moderately underestimated the risk of ASCVD (22.1% and 12.4%, respectively), but while PCE overestimated the risk (36.1%). FRS and China-PAR were found to underestimate the risk of ASCVD (26% and 63%, respectively) for men, while PCE overestimated the risk by 8%; For women, FRS and China-PAR were found to underestimate the risk of ASCVD (14% and 35%, respectively), while PCE overestimated the risk by 88%. Conclusion: The 10-year ASCVD risk was found to be overestimated by PCE. China-PAR had the most accurate predictions in women, while FRS was particularly well-calibrated in males. All three risk models have good discrimination, with FRS and PCE being well-calibrated in men and all three being well-calibrated in women. Therefore, accurate risk models are warranted to facilitate the prevention of ASCVD at the baseline among Chinese older adults.
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.