ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022
Utilization of Risk Scores for Coronary Heart Disease Diagnosis in Rural China.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The current study was to design a cardiovascular risk score for the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the rural area of China and the sensitivity and specificity of this score would be assessed. Methods: A total of 520 patients were enrolled and based on the results from coronary artery angiography, patients were divided into three groups: CHD group (coronary artery ≥50% stenosis), atherosclerosis group (coronary artery <50% stenosis) and normal groups (without stenosis). Between-group differences were evaluated and the sensitivity and specificity of cardiovascular risk score were evaluated. Results: Compared to the normal and atherosclerosis groups, patients in the CHD group were older, had higher body mass index, and more likely to be smoking and obese, and had dyslipidemia, hypertension and diabetes, and had higher cardiovascular risk score (4.05 ± 2.15 vs 2.94 ± 1.90 vs 2.54 ± 1.59). Patients in the CHD group were more likely to have cardiovascular risk scores ≥2 (90.2% CHD group vs 74.2% atherosclerosis group vs 76.1% normal group, P < 0.05). The area under the ROC was 0.673, with 95% confidence interval was 0.623-0.722 (P < 0.001), and the sensitivity and specificity were highest when the cardiovascular risk score was 4, indicating that the value of cardiovascular risk score of 4 was a good cutoff point for CHD diagnosis. Conclusion: Using cardiovascular risk score can improve CHD diagnosis which may help to reduce health disparities between rural and urban area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.