ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2026
Cutoff Values of Pulse Wave Velocity Score to Estimate 10-Year Cardiovascular Disease Risk by Framingham and SCORE2 Systems.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pulse Wave Velocity Assessment: A Useful Tool to Screen Asymptomatic Individuals at High Cardiovascular Risk?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Arterial stiffness measurement can predict risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of traditional risk factors and can be used to improve cardiovascular risk assessments in various clinical scenarios. The current study aimed to determine PWV cutoff values for CVD risk classification of individuals based on different risk scoring systems. The participants' CVD risk was calculated using the Framingham and SCORE2 systems. Arterial stiffness was estimated by measuring PWV values. According to Framingham score system, 53.1% (n = 111) of the participants had low risk, 28.2% (n = 59) had intermediate risk, and 18.7% (n = 39) had high risk. According to SCORE2 system, 41.1% (n = 86) were low risk, 36.4% (n = 76) were intermediate risk, and 22.5% (n = 47) were high risk. The mean values of PWV in Framingham and SCORE2 risk groups were 7.09 ± 1.03 and 6.95 ± 0.89 m/s in the low-risk group, 8.14 ± 1.08 and 7.85 ± 1.09 m/s in the intermediate-risk group, and 9.24 ± 0.99 and 9.13 ± 1.33 m/s in the high-risk group, respectively. In the determination of CVD risk groups, PWV cutoff values were 7.6 and 7.1 m/s for the low-moderate risk group and 8.1 and 8.5 m/s for the intermediate and high-risk groups according to Framingham and SCORE2 systems, respectively. There were significant differences in risk categorization between Framingham and SCORE2 systems. PWV value showed high positive correlation with both Framingham and SCORE2 system risk scores. PWV values may be a practical, rapid and useful method for cardiovascular risk categorization independent of external factors.
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.