ArticleScientific reports2026
External validation of the PREVENT risk score: performance and clinical utility in an Iranian population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Review
- Comparative evaluation of the predicting risk of cardiovascular disease events versus pooled cohort equations risk scores for statin eligibility in an Iranian population.American journal of preventive cardiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prediction of cardiovascular disease risk is crucial for prevention, but current models may not be generalizable to diverse populations. This study externally validated the predicting risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) model, which includes clinical and metabolic predictors, such as estimated glomerular filtration rate, to estimate 10-year ASCVD risk. Using data from the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study, we assessed its performance in a Middle Eastern population of 5799 adults (ages 30–79 years) over a median of 13 years. We evaluated discrimination (AUC), calibration (pre- and post-recalibration), and decision-analytic metrics like net benefit (NB) and net reclassification improvement (NRI). The ASCVD incidence rate was 4.7 per 1000 person-years. PREVENT showed excellent discrimination in women (AUC: 0.84) and acceptable performance in men (AUC: 0.76). The model initially underestimated risk in men, which was corrected by recalibration, improving predicted risk from 4.2 to 7.6% and sensitivity from 62% to 80%. Recalibration also improved NRI (men: +61%, women: +79%) and slightly increased NB. Decision curve analysis showed clinical advantages for risk thresholds of 10–20% in women and 13–20% in men. PREVENT provides a promising tool for ASCVD risk prediction in Middle Eastern populations with local adaptation.
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.