ArticleClinical rheumatology2025
External validation of the accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction tools in psoriatic disease: a UK Biobank study.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in psoriatic arthritis patients.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Observational
- Cardiovascular Risk in Psoriatic Arthritis: Mechanisms, Risk Assessment, and Long-Term Management Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Altered Lipid Metabolism in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Comprehensive Review.Metabolites · 2026Review
- 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
- The Impact of Targeted Therapies on the Bone-Vascular Axis in Psoriasis: A Narrative Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Review
- 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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRisk prediction is important for preventing and managing cardiovascular disease (CVD). CVD risk prediction tools designed for the general population may be inaccurate in people with inflammatory diseases.
objectivesTo investigate the performance of four cardiovascular risk prediction tools (QRISK3, Framingham Risk Score, Reynolds Risk Score and SCORE) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis. We also compare performance in participants with no inflammatory conditions and in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsThis research utilised the UK Biobank Resource. We identified participants with PsA, psoriasis and RA and calculated their cardiovascular risk using each risk tool. We assessed model calibration by comparing observed and predicted outcomes. Discrimination of 10-year risk prediction was assessed using time-dependent area under ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values.
resultsWe included 769 individuals with PsA, 8062 with psoriasis and 4772 with RA when assessing the QRISK3 tool. Predictions for individuals with psoriasis were roughly as accurate as those with no inflammatory conditions with time-dependent AUC of 0.74 (95%CI, 0.72, 0.76) and of 0.74 (95%CI, 0.72, 0.77) respectively. In contrast, individuals with PsA obtained the least accurate predictions with an AUC of 0.70 (95%CI, 0.64, 0.76). Individuals with RA also obtained less accurate predictions with AUC of 0.72 (0.69,0.74). For the Framingham risk score, AUCs varied between 0.61 (95%CI, 0.55, 0.68) for participants with PsA and 0.71 (95%CI, 0.68, 0.74) for individuals with no inflammatory condition.
conclusionsIn general, CVD risk prediction accuracy was similar for individuals with psoriasis or no inflammatory condition, but lower for individuals with PsA or RA.
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.