ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention2024
Comparison of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and Framingham risk scores (FRS) in an Iranian population.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-traditional risk factors for myocardial infarction in adults under forty: A systematic review of emerging trends.World journal of cardiology · 2026Article
- Intensive blood pressure control to prevent major cardiovascular events in individuals with high-normal blood pressure (prehypertension): PRINT-TAHA9 randomized clinical trial.Clinical hypertension · 2026Article
- Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Healthcare Professionals in Iran.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Comparison of 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in metropolitan and rural areas of South of Iran.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the Current Tools in Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in the Middle East and the Need for Region-Specific Models - A Scoping Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Framingham risk score (FRS) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score (ASCVDrs) are widely used tools developed based on the American population. This study aimed to compare the ASCVDrs and FRS in an Iranian population. Method: The participants of the Fasa Adult Cohort Study and the patients of the cardiovascular database of Vali-Asr Hospital of Fasa, aged 40-80 years, were involved in the present cross-sectional study. After excluding non-eligible participants, the individuals with a history of myocardial infarction or admission to the cardiology ward due to heart failure were considered high-risk, and the others were considered low-risk. The discriminative ability of FRS and ASCVDrs was evaluated and compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The correlation and agreement of ASCVDrs and FRS were tested using Cohen Kappa and Spearman. Results: Finally, 8983 individuals (mean age:53.9 ± 9.5 y, 49.2 % male), including 1827 high-risk participants, entered the study. ASCVDrs detected a greater portion of participants as high-risk in comparison with FRS (28.7 % vs. 15.7 %). ASVD (AUC:0.794) had a higher discriminative ability than FRS (AUC:0.746), and both showed better discrimination in women. Optimal cut-off points for both ASCVDrs (4.36 %) and FRS (9.05 %) were lower than the original ones and in men. Compared to FRS, ASCVDrs had a higher sensitivity (79.3 % vs. 71.6 %) and lower specificity (64.5 % vs. 65.1 %). FRS and ASCVDrs had a moderate agreement (kappa:0.593, Conclusions: ASCVDrs had a more accurate prediction of cardiovascular events and identified a larger number of people as high-risk in the Iranian population.
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.