Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37497700›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2023

Appraisal of Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Biomarkers, and Ocular Imaging in Cardiovascular Risk Prediction.

Julie S Moore, M Andrew Nesbit, Tara Moore

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie S MooreSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, York St, Belfast BT15 1ED, United Kingdom.
M Andrew NesbitSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, York St, Belfast BT15 1ED, United Kingdom.
Tara MooreSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, York St, Belfast BT15 1ED, United Kingdom.
University of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death worldwide despite the use of available cardiovascular disease risk prediction tools. Identification of high-risk individuals via risk stratification and screening at sub-clinical stages, which may be offered by ocular screening, is important to prevent major adverse cardiac events. Retinal microvasculature has been widely researched for potential application in both diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk prediction. However, the conjunctival microvasculature as a tool for cardiovascular disease risk prediction remains largely unexplored. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current cardiovascular risk assessment methods, identifying gaps in the literature that imaging of the ocular microcirculation may have the potential to fill. This review also explores the themes of machine learning, risk scores, biomarkers, medical imaging, and clinical risk factors. Cardiovascular risk classification varies based on the population assessed, the risk factors included, and the assessment methods. A more tailored, standardised and feasible approach to cardiovascular risk prediction that utilises technological and medical imaging advances, which may be offered by ocular imaging, is required to support cardiovascular disease prevention strategies and clinical guidelines.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesBiomarkersDiagnostic ImagingHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBiomarkersbiomarkersCardiovascular diseaseeyemedical imaging.microcirculationrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID37497700
PMCPMC10636798
OpenAlexW4385295549

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.