Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39030064›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Global health2024

Risk estimation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: considerations for appropriate risk prediction model selection.

Kim Robin van Daalen, Dudan Zhang, Stephen Kaptoge, Ellie Paige, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Lisa Pennells

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Association between PMBMC public health · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Application of biological age for cardiovascular risk prediction in a community-based Chinese cohort].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    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. 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

6 authors.

Kim Robin van DaalenBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Heart and Lung Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Dudan ZhangBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Heart and Lung Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen KaptogeBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Heart and Lung Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ellie PaigePopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Emanuele Di AngelantonioBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Heart and Lung Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Behaviour, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Health Data Science Research Centre, Human Technopole, Milan, Italy.
Lisa PennellsBritish Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Heart and Lung Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: lamp2@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases remain the number one cause of death globally. Cardiovascular disease risk scores are an integral tool in primary prevention, being used to identify individuals at the highest risk and guide the assignment of preventive interventions. Available risk scores differ substantially in terms of the population sample data sources used for their derivation and, consequently, in the absolute risks they assign to individuals. Differences in cardiovascular disease epidemiology between the populations contributing to the development of risk scores, and the target populations in which they are applied, can result in overestimation or underestimation of cardiovascular disease risks for individuals, and poorly informed clinical decisions. Given the wide plethora of cardiovascular disease risk scores available, identification of an appropriate risk score for a target population can be challenging. This Review provides an up-to-date overview of guideline-recommended cardiovascular disease risk scores from global, regional, and national contexts, evaluates their comparative characteristics and qualities, and provides guidance on selection of an appropriate risk score.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesPrimary PreventionHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID39030064
PMCPMC11283887

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.