ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Laboratory-based and office-based Globorisk scores to predict 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases among Iranians: results from the Fasa PERSIAN cohort.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 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
- Assessment of 10-year cardiovascular disease risk in Bangladesh: a comparative analysis of laboratory and non-laboratory-based WHO risk prediction models.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Agreement Between Office-Based and Laboratory-Based Globorisk Models and their Prediction of Cardiovascular Diseases in Turkish Population: A Nationwide Cohort Study.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Healthcare Professionals in Iran.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
- Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk among Ghanaians: A comparison of the risk assessment tools.American journal of preventive cardiology · 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
- 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
- Correction: Laboratory-based and office-based Globorisk scores to predict 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases among Iranians: results from the Fasa PERSIAN cohort.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGloborisk is a novel risk prediction model for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD). Globorisk is a country-specific risk prediction model that determines CVD risk for all countries. This model has two versions; laboratory-based and office-based. This study aimed to determine the agreement between laboratory-based and office-based models in a large sample of the general population.
methodsBaseline data from the Fasa cohort study was used for the current study. In total, 6810 participants ≥ 40 years without any history of cardiovascular disease or stroke were included in the study. To determine the laboratory-based risk model, factors include age, sex, current smoking status, history of diabetes, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and total cholesterol. To estimate the office-based risk model, factors were age, sex, current smoking status, SBP, and body mass index (BMI). Kappa statistics was used to distinguish the agreement between grouped scores in these two models. Additionally, correlation coefficients and scatter plots were used to determine the linear correlation between the two models.
resultsIn this study 46.53% of the participants were men. The mean age (SD) of participants was 51.08 (7.88) years. Agreements between the two models were moderate and substantial in all women and all men, respectively. The agreement between the two CVD risk groups was 90.15% (kappa = 0.717) in all men, 92.94% (kappa = 0.571) among men aged < 60 years and 77.60% (kappa = 0.645) in men aged ≥ 60 years. The agreement between the two CVD risk groups was 86.68% (kappa = 0.572) among all women, 93.96% (kappa = 0.274) among women aged < 60 years and 62.46% (kappa = 0.422) among women aged ≥ 60 years. A very strong positive correlation (r = 0.94) was found between the two risk scores in all men, and it was similar among men aged < 60 years (r = 0.84) and men aged > 60 years (r = 0.94). Among all women, there was a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.87), and the strong positive correlation remained among < 60 years old (r = 0.76) and women > 60 years old (r = 0.76).
conclusionThe Globorisk office-based model which is easier to use as it does not require blood testing can determine the risk groups in this population. The Globorisk office-based model may be used for CVD risk screening in low-middle income countries where resources are limited.
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.