ArticleHigh blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension2025
Discrepancies Between Physician-Perceived and Calculated Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Prevention: Implications for LDL-C Target Achievement and Appropriate Lipid-Lowering Therapy.
Article in High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Suboptimal Achievement of Guideline-Recommended LDL-C Targets in Older Patients Undergoing Comprehensive Geriatric Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Validation of Risk Perception Cut-Offs in Italian Brief PRHDS (PRHDS-BI): Implications for Primary Cardiovascular Prevention.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026Observational
- Gaps Between Guidelines and Practice in Patients with Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study (SNAPSHOT-Brazil Study).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Statin prescription patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.BMC endocrine disorders · 2026Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of hypertension in rural Bangladesh: A population-based cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- A Systematic Bibliometric Analysis of Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Obesity (2014-2024).Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate risk assessment is critical in cardiovascular (CV) prevention, yet physicians often underestimate CV risk, leading to inadequate preventive measures.
aimThis study evaluates the concordance between physician-perceived CV risk and calculated CV risk in a primary prevention setting.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included primary prevention patients from the Cardiology Outpatient Clinic of Caserta Hospital, Italy. Two independent cardiologists evaluated the physician-perceived risk, and a third resolved discrepancies. CV risk was calculated using SCORE2 for patients with 70 years or less and SCORE2-OP for those with more than 70 years. The concordance between perceived and calculated risks was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the influence of risk estimation on achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets recommended by the ESC.
results389 patients had complete data for CV risk calculation. Physician-perceived risk categorized 8.7% of patients as low/moderate, 37.8% as high, and 53.5% as very-high risk. In contrast, calculated CV risk according to the SCORE2/SCORE2-OP classified 8% as low/moderate, 5.7% as high, and 86.4% as very-high risk. The concordance between perceived and calculated CV risk was poor (Cohen's kappa 0.208, p < 0.001). Underestimated patients reached LDL-C targets in 16% of cases, well-estimated in 34.5%, and overestimated in 76.9%. Statin use was significantly lower in patients with underestimated CV risk (29.2%) compared to well-estimated (50%) and overestimated (76.9%) groups (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with overestimated risk were more likely to achieve LDL-C targets (OR 5.33, CI 1.33-21.42, p = 0.018), whereas underestimated patients were 47% less likely (OR 0.53, CI 0.3-0.93, p = 0.027).
conclusionsA significant discrepancy exists between physician-perceived and calculated CV risk, leading to risk underestimation in over one-third of patients. This underestimation is associated with lower LDL-C target achievement and reduced statin use.
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.