ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Cardiovascular Risk Estimation and Statin Prescribing in Primary Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStatin prescribing for primary prevention remains a topic of debate, especially among individuals with low to moderate risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), partly due to limitations of current cardiovascular risk assessment tools. This study aimed to determine whether differences exist in risk estimation among various cardiovascular risk calculators used in Canadian clinical practice guidelines and to describe the proportion of patients who may fall into a different risk category if an alternative risk calculator were used.
methodsThis work was approved by the local research ethics board. A retrospective chart review was conducted for adult patients aged 40 and older without a statin-indicated condition or prior cardiovascular event who underwent lipid assessment at a single family medicine center in London, Ontario, between 2010 and 2023. Three online calculators and two risk estimators (Framingham and American Society for Cardiovascular Disease) were used to re-estimate cardiovascular risk and compare the results with the values documented in the patient's chart.
resultsOf 50 patients, 20% did not have a documented cardiovascular risk value in their chart at the time of lipid assessment. However, the mean difference in Framingham risk values between the electronic medical record and the PEER (patients, experience, evidence, research) lipid online calculator was statistically significant (3.44%, 95% CI 0.11-6.76, p<0.05). Additionally, 23 (46%) patients would have fallen into a lower risk category according to Canadian clinical practice guidelines if the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator had been used instead of the Framingham estimator for CVD risk assessment.
conclusionCardiovascular risk percentages differ between those calculated using an electronic medical record tool and those calculated with online calculators. Depending on the tool used, a proportion of patients may fall into a different cardiovascular risk category, resulting in different management decisions. Specifically, patients who would fall into a lower risk category could be considered for lifestyle management alone rather than statin initiation. Further research is needed to guide consistent use of available point-of-care risk tools by clinicians, and clinical practice guidelines should incorporate these recommendations.
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.