ReviewGlobal cardiology science & practice2025
Impact of coronary artery calcium scores on cardiovascular risk and preventive therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Global cardiology science & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Coronary artery calcium is not universal: Population differences limit the global applicability.Global cardiology science & practice · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring is a key noninvasive method for detecting subclinical atherosclerosis and refining cardiovascular risk assessment. It enhances traditional risk models and plays an expanding role in preventive cardiology. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the relationship between CAC presence and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as its impact on the initiation and continuation of preventive pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions among asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals without known coronary artery disease (CAD).
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted through February 2025 across PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational research comparing outcomes and behaviors between individuals with a CAC score of zero and those with a score above zero.
resultsFifty-three observational studies involving 210,672 asymptomatic and 32,477 symptomatic participants were analyzed. Over an average follow-up of 8.6 years, the presence of CAC was significantly associated with increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 5.58), all-cause mortality (OR: 3.90), myocardial infarction (OR: 4.01), and revascularization (OR: 11.90). CAC presence also correlated with greater odds of initiating and continuing preventive therapies such as aspirin, lipid-lowering, and blood pressure medications, as well as adopting healthier lifestyle changes like increased physical activity and improved diet.
conclusionCAC is a robust, independent marker of future cardiovascular risk and a strong catalyst for clinical intervention. Its use in risk stratification can enhance personalized prevention strategies in both asymptomatic and symptomatic populations.
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.