Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42023370›Full record

ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2026

Congruity between WHO ISH laboratory and non-laboratory-based charts in an urban population in India: A cross-sectional community-based analytical study.

Jyoti Pradhan, Amal Korambeth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jyoti PradhanDepartment of Community Medicine and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Amal KorambethDepartment of Ophthalmology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are responsible for nearly one-third of all global deaths. WHO ISH non-laboratory-based risk prediction charts are useful for predicting the individual risk of CVD, especially in places without laboratory facilities. However, their results must be comparable to the laboratory-based charts. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study aimed to measure the congruity between the WHO ISH laboratory and non-laboratory-based charts in adults ≥40 years in an urban population in India. Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire, including details about behavioral and environmental risk factors, anthropometry, and biochemical measurements. Statistical Analysis: Pearson's correlation and scatter plots were applied to measure the association between the risk scores in the two charts. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was applied to test the congruity between the risk categories given by the two charts. Receiver operator curve (ROC) plot for non-laboratory-based chart was plotted taking the laboratory-based chart as the gold standard. Results: The mean CVD risk scores of the nonlaboratory and the laboratory-based charts are 6.62 ± 4.62% (IQR 3-9) and 7.99 ± 6.05% (IQR 3-11.75), respectively. The mean CVD risk score in males came to be more than that of females. Scatter plots showed a very strong association with a correlation coefficient of 0.861 ( Conclusions: The non-laboratory-based chart can be applied to the population in low-and-middle-income countries like India, with reasonable accuracy.

Indexed as

Agreement of chartscardiovascular riskcomparison chartsnoncommunicable diseasesWHO ISH charts

Identifiers

PMID42023370
PMCPMC13098881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.