ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2025
Prediction of cardiovascular risk: validation of a non-laboratory and a laboratory-based score in a Brazilian community-based cohort of the PURE study.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Risk scores are essential tools for implementing cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Validating risk scores considering regional diversities and disparities is critical for reducing the burden of CVD on global morbidity and mortality. We aimed to validate two cardiovascular risk scores (laboratory and non-laboratory-based) to predict major adverse cardiovascular events in the Brazilian cohort of the PURE study. Methods: We validated two risk scores derived from the INTERHEART study, the non-laboratory INTERHEART risk score (NL-IHRS) and the laboratory fasting cholesterol INTERHEART risk score (FC-IHRS) using data from 4623 (urban areas) and 1415 (rural areas) participants without CVD in the Brazilian cohort of the PURE study enrolled in 2004 and 2005 and followed up to September 2021. The endpoint was major cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. We evaluated the model performance of IHRS through c-statistic and calibration methods. Findings: After a mean follow-up of 8.8 years (range, 0.28-15.1 years), there were 312 cardiovascular events, corresponding to an incidence rate of 0.58% per year (0.56% per year in urban versus 0.64% per year in rural areas). For the NL-IHRS, the c-statistic was 0.69 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.66-0.72) in the overall cohort, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the urban cohort, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.78) in the rural cohort. C-statistic values for the recalibrated FC-IHRS were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.74), 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64-0.76) in the overall, urban, and rural cohorts, respectively. Interpretation: In this Brazilian community-based prospective cohort, both NL-IHRS and FC-IHRS-based models performed with reasonable discriminative accuracy on the risk estimation of long-term risk of major CVD. A non-laboratory-based CVD risk score may be instrumental in Brazilian communities with limited access to medical resources. Funding: Population Health Research Institute, Novartis Biociências S.A.
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.