ArticleCureus2026
Underestimation of Cardiovascular Risk by 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) Cardiovascular Risk Charts Compared With Framingham Global Risk Score (FGRS) in a Brazilian Population: Implications for Primary Prevention.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality in Brazil. Accurate risk stratification is essential for guiding primary prevention, yet the concordance between global tools remains uncertain in specific populations. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between the Framingham Global Risk Score (FGRS) and the 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) cardiovascular risk charts in a Brazilian population, assessing both calibration bias and the utility of non-laboratory models.
methodsAn observational, cross-sectional study was conducted at Hospital de Clínicas de Uberlândia (HC-UFU), a tertiary care center in Uberlândia, Brazil. A convenience sample of 140 adults (aged 40-74 years) was evaluated. Risk of 10-year cardiovascular events was estimated using the FGRS and WHO charts (Tropical Latin America region), applying both laboratory-based and non-laboratory (body mass index (BMI)-based) algorithms. Agreement was assessed using weighted kappa (kappa) and Bland-Altman analysis. We tested two threshold strategies: a standardized cut-off (≥20% for both) and tool-specific thresholds (FGRS ≥20% vs. WHO ≥10%) to assess clinical equivalence.
resultsThe WHO charts systematically underestimated CVD risk compared to the FGRS. Using the standard ≥20% threshold, the FGRS identified 59.3% of men as high-risk, whereas WHO identified only 11.1%, revealing a substantial "prevention gap." Agreement between the FGRS and WHO was generally fair (kappa < 0.40) but improved significantly when a lower threshold (≥ 10%) was applied to the WHO charts. Conversely, internal consistency between laboratory and non-laboratory models was robust for both tools (kappa = 0.81), validating the use of BMI-based scores.
conclusionIn this high-risk Brazilian population, WHO charts yielded significantly lower risk estimates than Framingham, potentially excluding eligible patients from statin therapy if standard thresholds are used. Adopting a lower treatment threshold (≥10%) for WHO charts may help achieve clinical equivalence with Framingham. Non-laboratory models demonstrated high reliability and offer a viable alternative for risk screening in resource-constrained settings.
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.