Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41321468›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025

Validity of self-assessment tools for cardiovascular risk behaviors: A systematic review.

Wilhelmina F Goevaerts, Joyce M Heutinck, Mayke M C J Van Leunen, Wessel W Nieuwenhuys, Lonneke A Fruytier, Cyrille Herkert, Jos J Kraal, Ilse A G Rongen, Willem J Kop, Yuan Lu and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Wilhelmina F GoevaertsDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Joyce M HeutinckDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Mayke M C J Van LeunenDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Wessel W NieuwenhuysDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Lonneke A FruytierDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Cyrille HerkertDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jos J KraalFaculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Ilse A G RongenDepartment of Cardiology, Máxima Medical Center, Eindhoven, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Willem J KopDepartment of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Center of Research on Psychological Disorders and Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Yuan LuDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Hareld M C KempsDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Rutger W M BrouwersDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A healthy lifestyle is crucial in mitigating cardiovascular disease risk. Numerous tools for cardiovascular risk behaviors have been developed that people can use for self-assessment purposes. However, the validity of these tools is insufficiently understood in the context of self-assessment. This systematic review examines the validity of self-assessment tools for cardiovascular risk behaviors, including lack of physical activity (PA), tobacco smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet, and chronic psychological stress. Methods: The PubMed, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies investigating the validity of tools in the context of self-assessment (i.e., without active involvement of a healthcare professional) were included. We investigated criterion validity (i.e., comparison to a gold standard), convergent validity (comparison to similar measures), face and content validity, and reliability. Results: Thirty-one unique articles reporting on 37 separate validation studies were included, which examined a total of 49 distinct self-assessment tools (with tools for PA ( Discussion: Behavioral self-assessment tools are predominantly focused on PA and nutritional intake, with limited evidence for good validity. There is a pressing need for developing and validating comprehensive and accurate self-assessment tools.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular riskDigital healthLifestyle behaviorPreventionSelf-assessmentValidity

Identifiers

PMID41321468
PMCPMC12663659

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.