ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing cardiovascular disease risk and social determinants of health: A comparative analysis of five risk estimation instruments using data from the Eastern Caribbean Health Outcomes Research Network.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing Non-Laboratory-Based and Laboratory-Based Cardiovascular Risk Predictions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is crucial for effective prevention and resource allocation. However, few CVD risk estimation tools consider social determinants of health (SDoH), despite their known impact on CVD risk. We aimed to estimate 10-year CVD risk in the Eastern Caribbean Health Outcomes Research Network Cohort Study (ECS) across multiple risk estimation instruments and assess the association between SDoH and CVD risk.
methodsFive widely used CVD risk estimation tools (Framingham and WHO laboratory, both laboratory and non-laboratory-based, and ASCVD) were applied using data from ECS participants aged 40-74 without a history of CVD. SDoH variables included educational attainment, occupational status, household food security, and perceived social status. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare differences in the association between selected SDoH and high CVD risk according to the five instruments.
findingsAmong 1,777 adult participants, estimated 10-year CVD risk varied substantially across tools. Framingham non-lab and ASCVD demonstrated strong agreement in categorizing participants as high risk. Framingham non-lab categorized the greatest percentage as high risk, followed by Framingham lab, ASCVD, WHO lab, and WHO non-lab. Fifteen times more people were classified as high risk by Framingham non-lab compared with WHO non-lab (31% vs 2%). Mean estimated 10-year risk in the sample was over 2.5 times higher using Framingham non-lab vs WHO non-lab (17.3% vs 6.6%). We found associations between food insecurity, those with the lowest level compared to the highest level of education, and non-professional occupation and increased estimated CVD risk.
interpretationOur findings highlight significant discrepancies in CVD risk estimation across tools and underscore the potential impact of incorporating SDoH into risk assessment. Further research is needed to validate and refine existing risk tools, particularly in ethnically diverse populations and resource-constrained settings, and to develop race- and ethnicity-free risk estimation models that consider SDoH.
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.