Evidence mapPaperPMID 39401079Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024

The Role of Visualization in Estimating Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Scoping Review.

Adrijana Svenšek, Mateja Lorber, Lucija Gosak, Katrien Verbert, Zalika Klemenc-Ketis, Gregor Stiglic

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Adrijana Svenšek *Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-0323-1720
Mateja LorberFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0001-7200-5204
Lucija GosakFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-8742-6594
Katrien VerbertDepartment of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6699-7710
Zalika Klemenc-KetisPrimary Healthcare Research and Development Institute, Community Health Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-0270-1754
Gregor Stiglic *Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-0183-8679

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupporting and understanding the health of patients with chronic diseases and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is often a major challenge. Health data are often used in providing feedback to patients, and visualization plays an important role in facilitating the interpretation and understanding of data and, thus, influencing patients' behavior. Visual analytics enable efficient analysis and understanding of large datasets in real time. Digital health technologies can promote healthy lifestyle choices and assist in estimating CVD risk.

objectiveThis review aims to present the most-used visualization techniques to estimate CVD risk.

methodsIn this scoping review, we followed the Joanna Briggs Institute PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The search strategy involved searching databases, including PubMed, CINAHL Ultimate, MEDLINE, and Web of Science, and gray literature from Google Scholar. This review included English-language articles on digital health, mobile health, mobile apps, images, charts, and decision support systems for estimating CVD risk, as well as empirical studies, excluding irrelevant studies and commentaries, editorials, and systematic reviews.

resultsWe found 774 articles and screened them against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The final scoping review included 17 studies that used different methodologies, including descriptive, quantitative, and population-based studies. Some prognostic models, such as the Framingham Risk Profile, World Health Organization and International Society of Hypertension risk prediction charts, Cardiovascular Risk Score, and a simplified Persian atherosclerotic CVD risk stratification, were simpler and did not require laboratory tests, whereas others, including the Joint British Societies recommendations on the prevention of CVD, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation, and Framingham-Registre Gironí del COR, were more complex and required laboratory testing-related results. The most frequently used prognostic risk factors were age, sex, and blood pressure (16/17, 94% of the studies); smoking status (14/17, 82%); diabetes status (11/17, 65%); family history (10/17, 59%); high-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol (9/17, 53%); and triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (6/17, 35%). The most frequently used visualization techniques in the studies were visual cues (10/17, 59%), followed by bar charts (5/17, 29%) and graphs (4/17, 24%).

conclusionsOn the basis of the scoping review, we found that visualization is very rarely included in the prognostic models themselves even though technology-based interventions improve health care worker performance, knowledge, motivation, and compliance by integrating machine learning and visual analytics into applications to identify and respond to estimation of CVD risk. Visualization aids in understanding risk factors and disease outcomes, improving bioinformatics and biomedicine. However, evidence on mobile health's effectiveness in improving CVD outcomes is limited.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesData VisualizationHumansRisk AssessmentRisk Factorscardiovascular disease preventionmobile phonePRISMArisk factorsvisual analyticsvisualization

Identifiers

PMID39401079
PMCPMC11519570

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.