SynthesisOpen heart2025
Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Open heart, 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.
- Article
- Pressure Injury Risk Assessment in Nursing Practice: A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Braden Scale and Machine Learning Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Cardiovascular risk stratification without recalibration: A comparative study of the PREVENT and WHO risk scores in a multiethnic Brazilian cohort.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of FINDRISC and the Framingham Model for Predicting CHD Risk: Results from the Kharameh Cohort Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular risk factors and the allostatic interoceptive network in dementia.Cardiovascular research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThis review compares non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction equations in populations targeted for primary prevention.
designSystematic review.
methodsWe searched five databases until 12 March 2024 and used prediction study risk of bias assessment tool to assess bias. Data on hazard ratios (HRs), discrimination (paired c-statistics) and calibration were extracted. Differences in c-statistics and HRs were analysed. PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42021291936).
resultsNine studies (1 238 562 participants, 46 cohorts) identified six unique CVD risk equations. Laboratory predictors (eg, cholesterol and diabetes) had strong HRs, while body mass index in non-laboratory models showed limited effect. Median c-statistics were 0.74 for both models (IQR: lab 0.77-0.72; non-lab 0.76-0.70), with a median absolute difference of 0.01. Calibration measures between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based equations were similar, although non-calibrated equations often overestimated risk.
conclusionThe discrimination and calibration measures between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based models show minimal differences, demonstrating the insensitivity of c-statistics and calibration metrics to the inclusion of additional predictors. However, in most reviewed studies, the HRs for these additional predictors were substantial, significantly altering predicted risk, particularly for individuals with higher or lower levels of these predictors compared with the average.
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.