ArticleJournal of global health2025
Regional variations in cardiovascular risk predictions: a comparative analysis of Framingham, SCORE2, and WHO models across 53 countries.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinically Relevant Discordance Between SCORE2 and REGICOR in Spanish Workers: Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Reclassification in Primary Prevention.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association Between Insulin Regimen and Cardiovascular Risk in Indonesian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Risk prediction models for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have been widely applied in clinical practice and in designing prevention policies globally, yet their accuracy across different regions with distinct epidemiological profiles remains uncertain. We examined the regional variation in risk distribution and agreement between these models. Methods: We analysed 53 nationally representative health surveys in seven regions. Using the World Health Organization (WHO), SCORE2, and Framingham CVD risk prediction models, we estimated the respondents' 10-year CVD risk and categorised them into low-, moderate-, or high-risk groups. Results: We included 86 430 individuals aged 40-69 years without a history of CVD in our analysis. Globally, CVD risk estimates differed substantially across models (WHO: 7.75%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.70-7.80; SCORE2: 3.72%; 95% CI = 3.69-3.75; Framingham: 12.42%; 95% CI = 12.34-12.50). We also noted regional disparities in identifying moderate- and high-risk subjects, particularly in South Asia (WHO: 12.57%; 95% CI = 11.63-13.51; SCORE2: 18.24%; 95% CI = 17.14-19.33; Framingham: 29.40%; 95% CI = 28.11-30.70), sub-Saharan Africa (WHO: 16.30%; 95% CI = 15.78-16.83; SCORE2: 22.69%; 95% CI = 22.09-23.28; Framingham: 33.85%; 95% CI = 33.18-34.52), East Asia & the Pacific (WHO: 21.06%; 95% CI = 20.57, 21.55; SCORE2: 31.03%; 95% CI = 30.47, 31.59; Framingham: 45.54%; 95% CI = 44.93-46.14), and Latin America & the Caribbean (WHO: 23.09%; 95% CI = 21.48-24.70; SCORE2: 41.56%; 95% CI = 39.68-43.44; Framingham: 55.83%; 95% CI = 53.94-57.72), with greater than two-fold differences across models. Agreement in classifying individuals into low-, moderate-, or high-risk groups remained relatively high across risk models (63.1%), but varied considerably across regions, from 73.91% in South Asia to 47.54% in Latin America & the Caribbean. Conclusions: The CVD risk estimates produced by the WHO, SCORE2, and Framingham models varied significantly across regions, with poor consistency in identifying at-risk individuals in some regions. These discrepancies may lead to undertreatment and inefficient use of otherwise limited healthcare resources. Region-specific adaptations are needed to enhance risk targeting, promote equity, and improve the overall effectiveness of primary prevention.
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.