ReviewFuture cardiology2026
Mapping and evaluation of global and country-specific cardiovascular disease risk prediction models.
Review in Future cardiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality, requiring precise risk prediction models for effective prevention and management. This review maps and evaluates globally utilized and country-specific CVD risk prediction models, including the Framingham Risk Score, Pooled Cohort Equations, PREVENT, WHO/ISH Risk Charts, INTERHEART, and SCORE2. A structured literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar, from which 30 relevant studies were selected. Most of the models integrate traditional risk factors such as age, sex, blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking status to estimate CVD risk. While these models demonstrate moderate to good discrimination (C-statistics ranging from 0.66 to 0.80) and validation, their applicability varies across populations, with concerns about overestimation or underestimation in non-original cohorts. Notably, the WHO/ISH and Globorisk models address global diversity by incorporating regional calibrations, making them suitable for low- and middle-income countries. Similarly, the country-specific risk scores outperform global models due to their incorporation of local socio-demographics. Limitations persist across existing models, including the underrepresentation of younger individuals, ethnic minorities, and the exclusion of emerging risk factors. Future efforts must prioritize the development of locally validated, population-specific models to support equitable and effective CVD risk assessment and 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.