Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296342›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2022

Comparison of laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based WHO cardiovascular disease risk charts: a population-based study.

Fatemeh Rezaei, Mozhgan Seif, Abdullah Gandomkar, Mohammad Reza Fattahi, Fatemeh Malekzadeh, Sadaf G Sepanlou, Jafar Hasanzadeh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Antibody detection against Kunitz-type protein inInternational journal of veterinary science and medicine · 2023
    Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fatemeh RezaeiDepartment of Social Medicine, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.
Mozhgan SeifDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Abdullah GandomkarNon-Communicable Disease Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mohammad Reza FattahiGastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Fatemeh MalekzadehDigestive Disease Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sadaf G SepanlouDigestive Disease Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Jafar HasanzadehResearch Centre for Health Sciences, Institute of Health, School of Health, Department of Epidemiology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. jhasanzadeh13@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1055-1418
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRJahrom University · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermining the risk of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) is a necessity for timely preventive interventions in high-risk groups. However, laboratory testing may be impractical in countries with limited resources. This study aimed at comparison and assessment of the agreement between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based WHO risk charts models.

methodsThis study was performed using the baseline data of 8138 participants in the pars cohort study who had no history of CVD and stroke. The updated 2019 WHO model was used to determine the 10-year fatal and non-fatal CVD risks. In general, there are two types of new WHO risk prediction models for CVD. The scores were determined based on age, sex, smoking status, diabetes, Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), and total cholesterol for the laboratory-based model and age, sex, smoking status, SBP, and Body Mass Index (BMI) for the non-laboratory-based model. The agreement of these two models was determined via kappa statistics for the classified risk (low: < 10%, moderate: 10-< 20%, high: ≥ 20%). Correlation coefficients (r) and scatter plots was used for correlation between scores.

resultsThe results revealed very strong correlation coefficients for all sex and age groups (r = 0.84 for males < 60 years old, 0.93 for males ≥ 60 years old, 0.85 for females < 60 years old, and 0.88 for females ≥ 60 years old). In the laboratory-based model, low, moderate, and high risks were 76.10%, 18.17%, and 5.73%, respectively. These measures were respectively obtained as 77.00%, 18.08%, and 4.92% in the non-laboratory-based model. Based on risk classification, the agreement was substantial for males < 60 years old and for both males and females aged ≥ 60 years (kappa values: 0.79 for males < 60 years old, 0.65 for males ≥ 60 years old, and 0.66 for females ≥ 60 years old) and moderate for females < 60 years old (kappa = 0.46).

conclusionsThe non-laboratory-based risk prediction model, which is simple, inexpensive, and non-invasive, classifies individuals almost identically to the laboratory-based model. Therefore, in countries with limited resources, these two models can be used interchangeably.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesBlood PressureCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentWorld Health OrganizationAgreementCardiovascular diseasesIranRisk assessmentWHO risk chart

Identifiers

PMID35296342
PMCPMC8925162
OpenAlexW4220793467

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.