ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2026
SCORE2-diabetes vs SCORE for evaluation of cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients.
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. 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.
- Integrated Cardio-Renal-Metabolic Risk Profiling in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Machine Learning-Assisted Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of mortality worldwide, with the risk being exacerbated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Traditionally, the Systematic coronary risk evaluation (SCORE) system has been used to estimate the 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular events. However, in 2023, the European Society of Cardiology introduced SCORE2-Diabetes, a diabetes-specific model that incorporates disease-related variables. This study aimed to compare the cardiovascular risk estimates from the SCORE and SCORE2-diabetes algorithms in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care, assessing adherence to Low-density Lipoprotein (LDL) therapeutic targets and the impact on cardiovascular risk management. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 360 diabetic patients aged 40-65 years in a primary care unit in northern Portugal, comparing the cardiovascular risk estimated by the SCORE and SCORE2-diabetes models. Results: The results showed that the SCORE model classified 95% of patients as high risk and 5% as very high risk, while the SCORE2-diabetes model categorized patients into four groups: 6% low risk, 30% moderate, 57% high, and 7% very high risk. Additionally, 58% of patients did not meet LDL therapeutic targets by SCORE2-Diabetes. Conclusions: The findings suggest that SCORE2-diabetes provides better discrimination of cardiovascular risk, allowing for more personalized treatment. Its integration into clinical systems could optimize decision-making, reduce therapeutic inertia, and improve clinical outcomes in patients with T2DM.
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.