ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Healthcare Professionals in Iran.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiovascular outcomes and adverse drug reactions associated with the use of ezetimibe in combination with a statin in diabetes mellitus patients with higher risk for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026 · on this mapPooled it
- Non-traditional risk factors for myocardial infarction in adults under forty: A systematic review of emerging trends.World journal of cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, necessitating accurate risk prediction models for effective prevention strategies. This study compares the predictive capabilities of 3 widely used 10-year cardiovascular risk assessment tools - Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score, Framingham Risk Score (FRS), and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) - in healthcare professionals in Iran. MATERIAL AND METHODS This cross-sectional study analyzed data from 222 healthcare professionals at Jamaran Hospital in Tehran, assessing cardiovascular risk profiles using the ASCVD, FRS, and SCORE2 tools. Risk factors included age, sex, dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and smoking status. Risk scores were compared to evaluate concordance and classification accuracy across different risk levels. RESULTS The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was notable: hypertension (30.1%), dyslipidemia (65.7%), diabetes (7.2%), and obesity (24.3%). SCORE2 showed varied distributions of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. ASCVD categorized most participants as low risk (85.6%), with smaller percentages in borderline (6.8%), intermediate (7.2%), and high-risk (0.5%) groups. FRS classified 97.7% as low risk and 2.3% as intermediate risk. Moderate agreement was observed between SCORE2 and ASCVD in moderate-risk (P<0.001, kappa=0.43) and high-risk (P=0.007, kappa=0.45) regions, with fair agreement between FRS and ASCVD (P<0.001, kappa=0.435). CONCLUSIONS This study highlights the significant prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among healthcare professionals in Iran. It emphasizes the need for recalibrating cardiovascular risk models to better reflect Iran's unique population characteristics, ultimately improving risk prediction accuracy and preventive strategies.
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.