ArticleActa informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH2025
Reassessing Cardiovascular Risk Stratification in Vietnam: Insights from SCORE2 and the Original SCORE Model.
Article in Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries like Vietnam. Risk stratification models such as the original SCORE model have been widely used to guide preventive strategies. Recently, the updated SCORE2 model has been developed to enhance prediction accuracy by incorporating non-fatal events and recalibration for different European regions. Objective: This study aims to compare the performance and applicability of SCORE2 versus the original SCORE in a Vietnamese population undergoing general health check-ups. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study on individuals attending general health check-ups at Cho Ray Hospital, a leading tertiary hospital in Vietnam, from January 2024 to July 2024. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected to calculate cardiovascular risk scores using both the original SCORE and the updated SCORE2 models. Results: Among 477 individuals undergoing general health check-ups, 317 patients met the inclusion criteria with a median age of 54.5 years (IQR: 47-62) and 35% were male. Risk stratification using the original SCORE model classified 87.1% as low-to-moderate risk, 9.1% as high risk, and 3.8% as very high risk. In contrast, SCORE2 reclassified 48.6% as low-to-moderate risk, while high and very high-risk categories increased to 35.6% and 15.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Notably, 122 out of 276 patients (44.2%) initially classified as low-to-moderate risk by SCORE were reclassified by SCORE2 into higher risk categories - 101 (high risk) and 21 (very high risk). Similarly, 58.6% (n = 17) of patients classified as high risk by SCORE were upgraded to very high risk by SCORE2. SCORE2 also identified more high and very high-risk individuals under 50 years old, particularly among male patients. Conclusion: Compared to the original SCORE model, SCORE2 significantly increased the detection of high and very high cardiovascular risk in Vietnamese individuals undergoing routine health check-ups. The findings suggest that SCORE2 may provide improved risk stratification, especially in younger and male populations, and may better support preventive cardiovascular strategies in clinical practice.
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.