ArticleBMJ public health2025
Optimal risk assessment intervals for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a population-based two-stage landmarking study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. 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.
- The Utility of Measures of Physical Behavior, Function, and Fitness as Predictors of Mortality.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The recommended assessment intervals for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) differ in major international guidelines. We aimed to provide empirical evidence on the optimal frequency of CVD risk assessment to inform future guidelines. Methods: We estimated the expected time to cross the 10-year CVD risk treatment threshold of 10% using extended two-stage landmarking for more than 2 million people using UK primary care electronic health records between April 2004 and May 2019 from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD Database (CPRD GOLD), which was linked to hospital admissions data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset and national mortality records from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). We grouped people based on their sex, initial risk level and age, and computed various percentiles of the expected crossing times per group. Based on the percentiles, optimal assessment intervals were identified and their performance was evaluated comparing to the current recommended intervals in the UK. Results: Our results showed that the expected crossing times for people with lower initial risk were much longer than those with higher initial risk. Within each initial risk group, expected time to crossing the risk treatment thresholds was shorter in people aged ≥65 years. Based on the median expected crossing times, our recommended intervals for women with initial 10-year risk of 7.5%-10%, 5%-7.5%, 2.5%-5% or<2.5% are 3 (1 if ≥65 years old), 7 (4), 10 (6) and 10 (10) years, respectively; intervals for men are 2 (1), 5 (5), 9 (9) and 10 (10) years. These intervals outperformed the 5-yearly risk reassessment for all individuals currently recommended in the UK. Conclusions: Our evidence suggests that CVD risk assessment intervals for primary prevention should be stratified by sex, initial risk level and age. For the UK population, our method found risk assessment intervals that reduce the number of assessments required while shortening the waiting time to the next assessment for those most in need.
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.