ArticleBMJ open2025
Risk prediction in people with acute myocardial infarction in England: a cohort study using data from 1521 general practices.
Article in BMJ open, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop prediction models for short-term outcomes following a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) event (index) or for past AMI events (prevalent) in a national primary care cohort.
designRetrospective cohort study using logistic regression models to estimate 1-year and 5-year risks of all-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular outcomes.
settingPrimary care practices in England contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and CPRD GOLD databases between 2006 and 2019.
participantsPatients with an incident (index) or prevalent AMI event. Models were trained on a random 80% sample of CPRD Aurum (n=1018 practices), internally validated on the remaining 20% (n=255) and externally validated using CPRD GOLD (n=248). OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination assessed using sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration assessed using calibration plots.
resultsIn the index (prevalent) cohorts, 94 241 (64 789) patients were included in the training and internal validation sets, and 16 832 (7479) in the external validation set. For the index cohort, AUCs for 1-year [5-year] all-cause mortality were 0.802 (95% CI 0.793 to 0.812) [0.847 (0.841 to 0.853)] internally and 0.800 (0.790 to 0.810) [0.841 (0.835 to 0.847)] externally. For the primary composite outcome (stroke, heart failure and all-cause death), AUCs were 0.763 (0.756 to 0.771) [0.824 (0.818 to 0.830)] internally and 0.748 (0.739 to 0.756) [0.808 (0.801 to 0.815)] externally. Discrimination was higher in the prevalent cohort, particularly for 1-year mortality (AUC: 0.896, 95% CI 0.887 to 0.904). Models excluding treatment variables showed slightly lower but comparable performance. Calibration was acceptable across models.
conclusionsThese models can support clinicians in identifying patients at increased risk of short-term adverse outcomes following AMI, whether newly diagnosed or with a prior history. This can inform monitoring strategies and secondary prevention and guide patient counselling on modifiable risk factors.
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.