Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Health Equity Perspective on Data-Driven Treatment Decisions in Cardiovascular Care: Risk Assessments Versus Individualized Treatment Rules.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical treatment decisions are often based on estimated global risk scores. When heterogeneity in treatment effects exists, assigning treatment according to estimated individualized treatment rules (ITRs) instead has the potential to improve mean outcomes. This article aims to investigate racial and ethnic group differences in treatment rates when comparing antihypertensive medication recommendations from an estimated ITR with a risk score approach.
methodsData were simulated to emulate observational data with underlying treatment effect heterogeneity in survival times. An ITR and risk score approach were compared to illustrate how the resulting recommendations may disagree. An ITR for prescribing antihypertensives was estimated from 3281 adults from MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), an observational longitudinal cohort study, and compared with the risk-based approach recommended by cardiovascular care guidelines. Hypothetical treatment rates under each "rule" were computed. In the simulation study, the proportion of individuals treated optimally under each rule was calculated. Using MESA, a Chi-square test of independence was performed to determine whether treatment rates differed across racial and ethnic groups.
resultsTwo benefits of ITRs were shown: they (1) maximize expected survival times and (2) may mitigate racial disparities when treatment effect heterogeneity is expected. Using MESA, the ITR recommended treatment to more participants than the risk score approach across all racial and ethnic groups. A Chi-square test suggested that treatment rates for different "rules" differed significantly across racial and ethnic groups (
conclusionsTreatment recommendations varied substantially when assigning treatment using an ITR versus a risk-based approach.
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.