ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2024
Assessment of Lifetime Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Time to Move Forward.
Review in Current cardiology reviews, 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.
- Precision medicine and personalized nursing in cardiovascular disease: clinical applications and frontier developments.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past decades, there has been a notable increase in the risk of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), even among younger individuals. Policymakers and the health community have revised CVD prevention programs to include younger people in order to take these new circumstances into account. A variety of CVD risk assessment tools have been developed in the past years with the aim of identifying potential CVD candidates at the population level; however, they can hardly discriminate against younger individuals at high risk of CVD.Therefore, in addition to the traditional 10-year CVD risk assessment, lifetime CVD risk assessment has recently been recommended by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology prevention guidelines, particularly for young individuals. Methodologically, the benefits of these lifetime prediction models are the incorporation of left truncation observed in survival curves and the risk of competing events which are not considered equivalent in the common survival analysis. Thus, lifetime risk data are easily understandable and can be utilized as a risk communication tool for Public Health surveillance. However, given the peculiarities behind these estimates, structural harmonization should be conducted in order to create a sex-, race-specific tool that is sensitive to accurately identifying individuals who are at high risk of CVD. In this review manuscript, we present the most commonly used lifetime CVD risk tools, elucidate several methodological and critical points, their limitations, and the rationale behind their integration into everyday clinical practice.
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.