Prediction of first coronary events with the Framingham score: A systematic review

American Heart Journal

Volumn 153, Issue 5, 2007, Pages

  Eichler, Klaus ^a   Puhan, Milo A ^a   Steurer, Johann ^a   Bachmann, Lucas M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; BIOSIS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDLINE; NEW ZEALAND; POPULATION; POPULATION RISK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247346589     PISSN: 00028703     EISSN: 10976744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.02.027     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Wood D. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Heart 80 (1998) S1-S29
2. Anonymous. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 285 (2001) 2486-2497
3. Sheridan S., Pignone M., and Mulrow C. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med 18 (2003) 1039-1052
4. Hense H.W., Schulte H., Lowel H., et al. Framingham risk function overestimates risk of coronary heart disease in men and women from Germany-results from the MONICA Augsburg and the PROCAM cohorts. Eur Heart J 24 (2003) 937-945
5. Brindle P., Emberson J., Lampe F., et al. Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study. BMJ 327 (2003) 1267
6. Madhok V., and Fahey T. Cardiovascular risk estimation: important but may be inaccurate. BMJ 332 (2006) 1422
7. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews (2001), University of York, New York
8. Laupacis A., Sekar N., and Stiell I.G. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 277 (1997) 488-494
9. Diverse Populations Collaborative Group. Prediction of mortality from coronary heart disease among diverse populations: is there a common predictive function?. Heart 88 (2002) 222-228
10. Altman D.G. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323 (2001) 224-228
11. Altman D.G., Machin D., Bryant T.N., et al. Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. 2nd ed. (2000), BMJ, London
12. Brindle P., Montaner D., May M., et al. The effect of timescale on the validity of the Framingham risk score: a prospective study. The 3rd Conference of Epidemiological Longitudinal Studies in Europe (CELSE) (2004), Poster Session A, Bristol 57
13. Cooper J.A., Miller G.J., and Humphries S.E. A comparison of the PROCAM and Framingham point-scoring systems for estimation of individual risk of coronary heart disease in the Second Northwick Park Heart Study. Atherosclerosis 181 (2005) 93-100
14. Empana J.P., Ducimetiere P., Arveiler D., et al. Are the Framingham and PROCAM coronary heart disease risk functions applicable to different European populations? The PRIME Study. Eur Heart J 24 (2003) 1903-1911
15. Ferrario M., Chiodini P., Chambless L.E., et al. Prediction of coronary events in a low incidence population. Assessing accuracy of the CUORE Cohort Study prediction equation. Int J Epidemiol 34 (2005) 413-421
16. Greenland P., LaBree L., Azen S.P., et al. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA 291 (2004) 210-215
17. Milne R., Gamble G., Whitlock G., et al. Framingham Heart Study risk equation predicts first cardiovascular event rates in New Zealanders at the population level. N Z J Med 116 (2003) U662
18. Mora S., Yanek L.R., Moy T.F., et al. Interaction of body mass index and Framingham risk score in predicting incident coronary disease in families. Circulation 111 (2005) 1871-1876
19. Orford J.L., Sesso H.D., Stedman M., et al. A comparison of the Framingham and European Society of Cardiology coronary heart disease risk prediction models in the normative aging study. Am Heart J 144 (2002) 95-100
20. Ramachandran S., French J.M., Vanderpump M.P.J., et al. Using the Framingham model to predict heart disease in the United Kingdom: retrospective study. BMJ 320 (2000) 676-677
21. Simons L.A., Simons J., Friedlander Y., et al. Risk functions for prediction of cardiovascular disease in elderly Australians: the Dubbo Study. Med J Aust 178 (2003) 113-116
22. Stephens J.W., Ambler G., Vallance P., et al. Cardiovascular risk and diabetes. Are the methods of risk prediction satisfactory?. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 11 (2004) 521-528
23. Thomsen T.F., McGee D., Davidsen M., et al. A cross-validation of risk scores for coronary heart disease mortality based on data from the Glostrup Population Studies and Framingham Heart Study. Int J Epidemiol 31 (2002) 817-822
24. Tunstall-Pedoe H., and Woodward M. By neglecting deprivation cardiovascular risk scoring will exacerbate social gradients in disease. Heart 92 (2006) 307-310
25. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. Influence of pravastatin and plasma lipids on clinical events in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS). Circulation 97 (1998) 1440-1445
26. Milne R., Gamble G., Whitlock G., et al. Discriminative ability of a risk-prediction tool derived from the Framingham Heart Study compared with single risk factors. N Z J. Med 116 (2003) U663
27. Wilson P.W., D'Agostino R.B., Levy D., et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 97 (1998) 1837-1847
28. Anderson K.M., Odell P.M., Wilson P.W., et al. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am J Heart 121 (1990) 293-298
29. Anderson K.M., Wilson P.W., Odell P.M., et al. An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. Circulation 83 (1991) 356-362
30. Thompson S.G., and Higgins J.P. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1559-1573
31. Hense H.W. Observations, predictions and decisions-assessing cardiovascular risk assessment. Int J Epidemiol 33 (2004) 235-239
32. D'Agostino Sr. R.B., Grundy S., Sullivan L.M., et al. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA 286 (2001) 180-187
33. Brindle P.M., Beswick A.D., Fahey T.F., et al. The accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Heart 92 (2006) 1752-1759
34. Eichler K., Puhan M., Steurer J., et al. Accuracy of risk assessment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (letter). Heart (2006). http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/hrt.2006.087932v3 [on 5 July 2006]
35. The Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. Lipid management guidelines-2001. National Heart Foundation of Australia, The Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. Med J Aust 175 Suppl (2001) S57-S85
36. Jackson R. Updated New Zealand cardiovascular disease risk-benefit prediction guide. BMJ 320 (2000) 709-710
37. Marrugat J., R DA, Sullivan L., et al. An adaptation of the Framingham coronary heart disease risk function to European Mediterranean areas. J Epidemiol Community Health 57 (2003) 634-638
38. Liu J., Hong Y., Agostino DR.B.S., et al. Predictive value for the Chinese population of the Framingham CHD risk assessment tool compared with the Chinese Multi-Provincial Cohort Study. JAMA 291 (2004) 2591-2599
39. De Backer G., Ambrosioni E., Borch-Johnsen K., et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: third joint task force of European and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of eight societies and by invited experts). Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 10 (2003) S1-S10