ArticleJournal of health monitoring2025
Risk of cardiovascular disease in Germany: results from GEDA 2022.
Article in Journal of health monitoring, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Knowledge of the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is important for its prevention. Methods: Data from a non-clinical test for the absolute risk of having a heart attack or stroke for the first time in the next ten years is available from 3,271 35- to 69-year-old participants in the GEDA 2022 study without a diagnosis of heart attack or stroke. This risk was categorised as Results: According to the CVD test, 73.5 % of adults were at low risk, 7.8 % were still at low risk, 6.0 % were at increased risk and 12.8 % were at high risk. In contrast, 28.7 % perceived themselves to be at almost no risk, 45.3 % at low risk, 20.4 % at moderate risk and 5.6 % at high risk of CVD. The higher the test-based risk, the lower the proportion of those who perceived themselves as having almost no or only a low risk. Nevertheless, half of the people with an increased to high risk according to the test result perceived themselves to be at almost no or only a low risk. The underestimation of risk was associated with lower education, better mental health and physical activity in both sexes. Conclusions: People who underestimate their risk of CVD despite an unfavourable risk factor profile are a key target group for cardiovascular prevention.
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.