ArticleVascular health and risk management2026
Comparison of FINDRISC and the Framingham Model for Predicting CHD Risk: Results from the Kharameh Cohort Study.
Article in Vascular health and risk management, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death worldwide, making early risk identification essential. This study compares the predictive performance of FINDRISC and the Framingham model in the Kharameh Cohort. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 9,469 participants aged 40-70 years from the Kharameh cohort (a branch of the PERSIAN study) who were free of CHD at baseline and were followed for 6 years to identify incident CHD events. Data on FINDRISC components, as well as laboratory and demographic variables, were collected at enrollment. Logistic regression models were developed using the total FINDRISC score and its individual items, and their predictive performance was compared with the Framingham non‑laboratory risk score using 10‑fold cross‑validation and metrics including AUC‑ROC, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: During a six‑year follow‑up of 9,469 participants (mean age 51.6 years, 55.6% female), 540 incident CHD events (5.7%) were identified. The total FINDRISC score was significantly higher in individuals who developed CHD (11.35 vs. 9.59, P<0.001). However, the total FINDRISC score alone showed weak discriminatory power (AUC=58.6%, 95% CI: 55.9-61.3%). An item-based FINDRISC model demonstrated improved performance (AUC=71%, 95% CI: 68.9-73%), and further enhancement with gender, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol yielded the highest predictive accuracy (AUC=75.2%, 95% CI: 73%-77%). The non‑laboratory Framingham risk score (AUC=73.3%, 95% CI: 71.4-75.1%) showed similar discriminatory performance compared with the enhanced item‑based FINDRISC models. Conclusion: The enhanced item-based FINDRISC model, incorporating gender and systolic blood pressure showed comparable performance to the Framingham non-laboratory model, providing a simple, accessible screening tool for the Iranian population.
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.