Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40489476›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Comparison of WHO laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based CVD risk charts among hypertensive adults attending primary healthcare centers in West Africa sub-region.

Kojo Awotwi Hutton-Mensah, Olayinka Rasheed Ibrahim, Adaku Nwankwo, George Bediako Nketiah, Funmi Temidayo Adeniyi, Abukari Yakubu Natogmah, James Ayodele Ogunmodede, Dike Ojji, Olumide Adesola, Biodun Sulyman Alabi and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular disease risk among hypertensive patients in Africa.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Kojo Awotwi Hutton-MensahDirectorate of Medicine, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID 0009-0006-3879-299X
Olayinka Rasheed IbrahimDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Medicine, University of Global Health Equity, Kigali, Rwanda.ORCID 0000-0002-2621-6593
Adaku NwankwoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Gwarimpa General Hospital, Abuja, Nigeria.
George Bediako NketiahDepartment of Family Medicine/Polyclinic, Korle Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra, Ghana.
Funmi Temidayo AdeniyiDepartment of Pediatrics, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Abukari Yakubu NatogmahSt Anthony Ann Hospital, Donyina, Ghana.
James Ayodele OgunmodedeDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
Dike OjjiDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Abuja Teaching Hospital, FCT, Nigeria.
Olumide AdesolaInstitute of Child Health, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Biodun Sulyman AlabiDepartment of ENT, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
Olugbenga Ayodeji MokuoluDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
Daniel SarpongOffice of Health Equity Research, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) non-laboratory cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk chart is sub-region-specific and is advocated in resource-constrained settings. However, the extent of agreement with laboratory-based assessment among hypertensive adults attending primary health centers (PHCs) in the West Africa sub-region remains unknown. This study compared 10-year CVD risk among adults with hypertension attending PHCs in Ghana and Nigeria. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis cross-sectional study recruited 319 adults with hypertension at PHCs in Ghana and Nigeria. All participants had their blood pressure, anthropometrics, fasting blood sugar, and fasting cholesterol measured following standard procedures. WHO laboratory and non-laboratory CVD risks were assessed and compared using Kappa statistics, correlation, and Bland-Altman Plot.

resultsThe median (interquartile range) for laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based CVD risk scores were comparable [7.0 (4.0 11.0) vs. 7.0 (4.0 to 11.0), p = 0.914]. Of the 319 participants, laboratory-based assessment classified 214 (67.1%) as low risk, while 210 (65.8%) were classified as low risk using the non-laboratory method. Eleven (3.4%) and 14 (4.4%) participants were classified as high-risk using laboratory- and non-laboratory-based methods, respectively. Overall, there was a very good positive correlation between the CVD risk assessment methods (r = 0.948, p<0.001). For all participants combined, there was substantial agreement (Kappa statistics), with K = 0.766. Bland-Altman showed a mean bias of 0.15 (SD = 1.74) in favor of non-laboratory-based assessment of CVD with an upper limit of 3.57 and a lower limit of -3.26.

conclusionThere was substantial agreement between laboratory- and non-laboratory-based WHO CVD risk charts in this study. In low-resource settings, such as Ghana and Nigeria, the WHO non-laboratory CVD risk prediction model offers a huge opportunity for primary CVD prevention in adults with hypertension.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHypertensionAdultAgedBlood PressureCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGhanaHumansMaleMiddle AgedNigeriaPrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID40489476
PMCPMC12148134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.