Evaluation of the performance of existing non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

Volumn 13, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Kariuki, Jacob K ^a   Stuart Shor, Eileen M ^a,b   Leveille, Suzanne G ^a   Hayman, Laura L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Absolute cardiovascular risk; Calibration; Discrimination; Global risk assessment; Risk assessment algorithms

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIABETES MELLITUS; FRAMINGHAM ALGORITHM; FRAMINGHAM RISK SCORE; GAZIANO ALGORITHM; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SWEDISH CONSULTATION BASED METHOD; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ALGORITHMS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84891006956     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712261     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-13-123     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Moser DK, Riegel B. Cardiac nursing: A companion to braunwald's heart disease 2008, 1418. St. Louis, Mo: Saunders/Elsevier.
2. Mendis S, Lindholm LH, Anderson SG, Alwan A, Koju R, Onwubere BJ, Kayani AM, Abeysinghe N, Duneas A, Tabagari S, Fan W, Sarraf-Zadegan N, Nordet P, Whitworth J, Heagerty A. Total cardiovascular risk approach to improve efficiency of cardiovascular prevention in resource constrain settings. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(12):1451-1462. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.02.001, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.02.001, 21530172.
3. World Health Organization Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Cardiovascular risk 2007, Geneva: WHO Press, World Health Organization.
4. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, McQueen M, Budaj A, Pais P, Varigos J, Lisheng L, INTERHEART Study Investigators Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): Case-control study. Lancet 2004, 364(9438):937-952. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17018-9, 15364185, INTERHEART Study Investigators.
5. Stuckler D, King L, Robinson H, McKee M. WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: A comparative analysis. Lancet 2008, 372(9649):1563-1569. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61656-6, 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61656-6, 18984189.
6. Cooney MT, Dudina AL, Graham IM. Value and limitations of existing scores for the assessment of cardiovascular risk: A review for clinicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54(14):1209-1227. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.020, 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.020, 19778661.
7. Hayman LL, Helden L, Chyun DA, Braun LT. A life course approach to cardiovascular disease prevention. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2011, 26(4 Suppl):S22-S34. 10.1097/JCN.0b013e318213ef7f; 10.1097/JCN.0b013e318213ef7f.
8. Lloyd-Jones DM. Cardiovascular risk prediction: Basic concepts, current status, and future directions. Circulation 2010, 121(15):1768-1777. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.849166; 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.849166, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.849166, 20404268.
9. Gaziano TA, Young CR, Fitzmaurice G, Atwood S, Gaziano JM. Laboratory-based versus non-laboratory-based method for assessment of cardiovascular disease risk: The NHANES I follow-up study cohort. Lancet 2008, 371(9616):923-931. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60418-3, 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60418-3, 2864150, 18342687.
10. Beswick AD, Brindle P, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. A systematic review of risk scoring methods and clinical decision aids used in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Royal College of General Practitioners [GRA] 2008, 4-105. NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 67S.
11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Open Med 2009, 3(3):e123-e130. 3090117, 21603045, PRISMA Group.
12. D'Agostino RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, Kannel WB. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: The Framingham heart study. Circulation 2008, 117(6):743-753. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579, 18212285.
13. Pandya A, Weinstein MC, Gaziano TA. A comparative assessment of non-laboratory-based versus commonly used laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk scores in the NHANES III population. PLoS One 2011, 6(5):e20416. 10.1371/journal.pone.0020416; 10.1371/journal.pone.0020416, 10.1371/journal.pone.0020416, 3105026, 21655241.
14. Mendis S, Lindholm LH, Mancia G, Whitworth J, Alderman M, Lim S, Heagerty T. World health organization (WHO) and international society of hypertension (ISH) risk prediction charts: Assessment of cardiovascular risk for prevention and control of cardiovascular disease in low and middle-income countries. J Hypertens 2007, 25(8):1578-1582. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282861fd3, 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282861fd3, 17620952.
15. Petersson U, Ostgren CJ, Brudin L, Nilsson PM. A consultation-based method is equal to SCORE and an extensive laboratory-based method in predicting risk of future cardiovascular disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2009, 16(5):536-540. 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832b1833; 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832b1833, 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832b1833, 19357517.
16. May M, Lawlor DA, Brindle P, Patel R, Ebrahim S. Cardiovascular disease risk assessment in older women: can we improve on framingham? British women's heart and health prospective cohort study. Heart 2006, 92(10):1396-1401. 10.1136/hrt.2005.085381, 10.1136/hrt.2005.085381, 1861043, 16547204.
17. Cox CS, Mussolino ME, Rothwell ST, Lane MA, Golden CD, Madans JH, Feldman JJ. Plan and operation of the NHANES I epidemiologic followup study, 1992. Vital Health Stat 1997, 1(35):1-231. 35.
18. Dawber TR, Meadors GF, Moore FE. Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: The Framingham study. Am J Public Health Nations Health 1951, 41(3):279-281. 10.2105/AJPH.41.3.279, 1525365, 14819398.
19. Cooney MT, Dudina A, D'Agostino R, Graham IM. Cardiovascular risk-estimation systems in primary prevention: Do they differ? do they make a difference? Can we see the future?. Circulation 2010, 122(3):300-310. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.852756, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.852756, 20644026.
20. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991, 121(1 Pt 2):293-298.
21. Conroy RM, Pyörälä K, Fitzgerald AP, Sans S, Menotti A, De Backer G, De Bacquer D, Ducimetière P, Jousilahti P, Keil U, Njølstad I, Oganov RG, Thomsen T, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Tverdal A, Wedel H, Whincup P, Wilhelmsen L, Graham IM. The SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003, 24(11):987-1003. 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00114-3, 12788299.
22. Persson M, Carlberg B, Weinehall L, Nilsson L, Stegmayr B, Lindholm LH. Risk stratification by guidelines compared with risk assessment by risk equations applied to a MONICA sample. J Hypertens 2003, 21(6):1089-1095. 10.1097/01.hjh.0000059052.65882.e9, 10.1097/00004872-200306000-00008, 12777945.
23. Yikona JI, Wallis EJ, Ramsay LE, Jackson PR. Coronary and cardiovascular risk estimation in uncomplicated mild hypertension. A comparison of risk assessment methods. J Hypertens 2002, 20(11):2173-2182. 10.1097/00004872-200211000-00016, 12409955.
24. Isles CG, Ritchie LD, Murchie P, Norrie J. Risk assessment in primary prevention of coronary heart disease: Randomised comparison of three scoring methods. BMJ 2000, 320(7236):690-691. 10.1136/bmj.320.7236.690, 27313, 10710579.
25. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RBS, D'Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 2008, 27(2):157-172. discussion 207-12. doi: 10.1002/sim.2929, 10.1002/sim.2929, 17569110.