Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40600406›Full record

ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2025

Development and calibration of the 2023 Australian cardiovascular disease risk prediction equations: a model updating study.

Ellie Paige, Emily Banks Am, Yuehan Zhang, Anushka Patel, Mark Woodward, Natalie Raffoul, Garry Jennings, Rodney T Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Ellie PaigeQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD.ORCID 0000-0003-0855-9872
Emily Banks AmNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT.
Yuehan ZhangNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT.
Anushka PatelThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW.
Mark WoodwardThe George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW.
Natalie RaffoulNational Heart Foundation of Australia, Sydney, NSW.ORCID 0000-0001-9474-258X
Garry JenningsNational Heart Foundation of Australia, Melbourne, VIC.
Rodney T JacksonThe University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

Department of Health and Aged Care, Australian GovernmentNational Health and Medical Research Council APP1149987National Health and Medical Research Council APP1174120National Health and Medical Research Council APP2016801National Health and Medical Research Council APP2017742National Heart Foundation of Australia 102131National Heart Foundation of Australia 107210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo modify, recalibrate, and test the performance of the New Zealand cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk equations (PREDICT) for application in Australia. STUDY

designModel updating study. SETTING,

participantsNew Zealand residents aged 30-79 years who presented to primary care practices without diagnosed CVD, congestive heart failure, or renal disease and whose CVD risk was assessed using PREDICT software during 1 October 2004 - 31 December 2016. For adapting the PREDICT equations to Australia, Māori, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African people were excluded because of demographic differences between the two countries.

interventionThe New Zealand PREDICT equations (general and diabetes-specific versions) were recalibrated for Australia, based on differences between Australia and New Zealand in CVD-specific mortality by age group and sex. Body mass index (BMI), ethnic background, and family history of CVD were omitted as variables in the general equation; BMI was retained in the diabetes-specific equation.

main outcome measuresRisk prediction outcomes: first CVD-specific hospitalisation or death. Model performance measures: calibration of the modified equations, assessed by plotting mean 5-year predicted risk against observed 5-year risk; model discrimination, assessed with the Harrell C statistic.

resultsThe modified New Zealand cohort for deriving the general AUS-PREDICT risk equation included 308 478 people (134 137 women, 43.5%); the modified cohort for deriving the diabetes-specific risk equation included 29 219 people with type 2 diabetes (13 246 women, 45.3%). For the general equation, predicted and observed CVD risks were closely aligned across risk deciles; discrimination was good for both women (C-statistic, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.76) and men (C-statistic, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.74). For the diabetes-specific equation, predicted and observed CVD risks were also closely aligned across risk deciles; discrimination was acceptable for both women (C-statistic, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.75) and men (C-statistic, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.68-0.71).

conclusionsThe internal validity of the new Australian CVD risk algorithm, recommended in the 2023 Australian CVD risk assessment and management guidelines, is good and has been recalibrated for use in Australia. The updated risk calculator is a landmark advance in the assessment of CVD risk in Australian primary care.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesAdultAgedAustraliaCalibrationFemaleHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew ZealandRisk AssessmentPrevention and controlRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40600406
PMCPMC12358102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.