Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39392632›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

External Validation of the American Heart Association PREVENT Cardiovascular Disease Risk Equations.

Britton Scheuermann, Alexandra Brown, Trenton Colburn, Hisham Hakeem, Chen Hoe Chow, Carl Ade

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Britton ScheuermannCollege of Health and Human Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Alexandra BrownDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Trenton ColburnDepartment of Physician Assistant Studies, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Hisham HakeemCotton O'Neil Heart Center, Stormont Vail Health, Topeka, Kansas.
Chen Hoe ChowCotton O'Neil Heart Center, Stormont Vail Health, Topeka, Kansas.
Carl AdeCollege of Health and Human Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The American Heart Association's Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations were developed to extend and improve on previous cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessments for the purpose of treatment initiation and patient-clinician communication. Objective: To assess prognostic capabilities, calibration, and discrimination of the PREVENT equations in a study sample representative of the noninstitutionalized, US general population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999 to 2010 data cycles. Participants included adults for whom 10-year follow-up data were available. Data curation and analyses took place from December 2023 through May 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary measures were risk estimated by the PREVENT equations, as well as risk estimates from the previous Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs). The primary outcome was composite CVD-related mortality at 10 years of follow-up. Additional analyses compared the PREVENT equations against the PCEs. Model discrimination was assessed with receiver-operator characteristic curves and Harrell C statistic from proportional hazard regression; model calibration was determined as the slope of predicted versus observed risk. Results: The study cohort, accounting for NHANES complex survey design, consisted of 172.9 million participants (mean age, 45.0 years [95% CI, 44.6-45.4 years]; 52.1% women [95% CI, 51.5%-52.6%]). In analyses adjusted for the NHANES survey design, a 1% increase in PREVENT risk estimates was statistically significantly associated with increased CVD mortality risk (hazard ratio, 1.090; 95% CI, 1.087-1.094). PREVENT risk scores demonstrated excellent discrimination (C statistic, 0.890; 95% CI, 0.881-0.898) but moderate underfitting of the model (calibration slope, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.21). PREVENT risk models performed statistically significantly better than the PCEs, as assessed by the net reclassification index (0.093; 95% CI, 0.073-0.115). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of the PREVENT equations, PREVENT risk estimates demonstrated excellent discrimination and only modest discrepancies in calibration. These findings provided evidence supporting utilization of the PREVENT equations for application in the intended population as suggested by the American Heart Association.

Indexed as

American Heart AssociationCardiovascular DiseasesNutrition SurveysAdultAgedFemaleHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRisk AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39392632
PMCPMC11470385

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.