ArticleJournal of translational medicine2022
Comparison of laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based WHO cardiovascular disease risk charts: a population-based study.
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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing Non-Laboratory-Based and Laboratory-Based Cardiovascular Risk Predictions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Congruity between WHO ISH laboratory and non-laboratory-based charts in an urban population in India: A cross-sectional community-based analytical study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- Unveiling Cardiovascular Risk Among Older Adults in Eastern India: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of ASCVD, SCORE-2, and HEARTS risk scores in Colombian adults at risk of type 2 diabetes: stratification, concordance, and associated factors.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Superior aortic strain and ventriculoarterial coupling in older women are moderately correlated with Framingham 10-year risk.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Office-based risk equation of Globorisk for prediction of ten-years cardiovascular risk among Iranian population: findings from Fasa PERSIAN cohort study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Association between health literacy and Framingham risk score.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of Laboratory and Non-Laboratory-Based 2019 World Health Organization Cardiovascular Risk Charts in the Bhutanese Population.Asia-Pacific journal of public health · 2024Article
- Population-wide impact of a pragmatic program to identify and manage individuals at high-risk of cardiovascular disease: a cluster randomized trial in 120 villages from Northern China.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Temporal trends of thyroid cancer between 2010 and 2019 in Asian countries by geographical region and SDI, comparison with global data.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2023Article
- A comparison of laboratory-based and office-based Framingham risk scores to predict 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases: a population-based study.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Estimation of 10-year cardiovascular risk among adult population in western Nepal using nonlaboratory-based WHO/ISH chart, 2023: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- A comparative assessment between Globorisk and WHO cardiovascular disease risk scores: a population-based study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Laboratory-based versus non-laboratory-based World Health Organization risk equations for assessment of cardiovascular disease risk.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Community Health Worker-Led Cardiovascular Disease Risk Screening and Referral for Care and Further Management in Rural and Urban Communities in Rwanda.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- WHO cardiovascular disease risk prediction model performance in 10 regions, China.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2023Article
- Antibody detection against Kunitz-type protein inInternational journal of veterinary science and medicine · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.