Cited by 216Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health

Nontraditional Risk Factors in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Open access
Lin, Jennifer S., Evans, Corinne V., Johnson, Eric, Redmond, Nadia, Coppola, Erin L., Smith, Ning·2018·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Incorporating nontraditional risk factors may improve the performance of traditional multivariable risk assessment for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objective: To systematically review evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force on the benefits and harms of 3 nontraditional risk factors in cardiovascular risk assessment: the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level, and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published through May 22, 2017. Surveillance continued through February 7, 2018. Study Selection: Studies of asymptomatic adults with no known cardiovascular disease. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular events, mortality, risk assessment performance measures (calibration, discrimination, or risk reclassification), and serious adverse events. Results: Forty-three studies (N = 267 244) were included. No adequately powered trials have evaluated the clinical effect of risk assessment with nontraditional risk factors on patient health outcomes. The addition of the ABI (10 studies), hsCRP level (25 studies), or CAC score (19 studies) can improve both discrimination and reclassification; the magnitude and consistency of improvement varies by nontraditional risk factor. For the ABI, improvements in performance were the greatest for women, in whom traditional risk assessment has poor discrimination (C statistic change of 0.112 and net reclassification index [NRI] of 0.096). Results were inconsistent for hsCRP level, with the largest analysis (n = 166 596) showing a minimal effect on risk prediction (C statistic change of 0.0039, NRI of 0.0152). The largest improvements in discrimination (C statistic change ranging from 0.018 to 0.144) and reclassification (NRI ranging from 0.084 to 0.35) were seen for CAC score, although CAC score may inappropriately reclassify individuals not having cardiovascular events into higher-risk categories, as determined by negative nonevent NRI. Evidence for the harms of nontraditional risk factor assessment was limited to computed tomography imaging for CAC scoring (8 studies) and showed that radiation exposure is low but may result in additional testing. Conclusions and Relevance: There are insufficient adequately powered clinical trials evaluating the incremental effect of the ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC score in risk assessment and initiation of preventive therapy. Furthermore, the clinical meaning of improvements in measures of calibration, discrimination, and reclassification risk prediction studies is uncertain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2018.4242

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A US Preventive Services Task Force meta-analysis found that although no randomized trials show that using coronary artery calcium reduces health outcomes, it improves discrimination and reclassification.

    “A recent meta-analysis from the US Preventive Services Task Force summarized the available evidence on the value of non-traditional risk factors for risk prediction, and found that, although there are no randomized trials showing that the use of CAC reduces health outcomes, nevertheless it improves both discrimination and reclassification [19].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, J. S., Evans, C. V., Johnson, E., Redmond, N., Coppola, E. L., & Smith, N.
Affiliations
Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Lin, Jennifer S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2018-07-17
Volume
320
Issue
3
Pages
281
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2852998865
Cited by
216
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HHSA 290-2015-00007-I)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Keywords
cardiovascular disease risk assessment, non-traditional risk factors, ankle-brachial index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, coronary artery calcium score, risk reclassification, risk discrimination, cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, radiation exposure, women, asymptomatic adults, USPSTF recommendations, cardiovascular risk prediction models, computed tomography, net reclassification improvement
MeSH terms
Adult, C-Reactive Protein, Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Trials as Topic, Coronary Artery Disease, Humans, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Risk Assessment, Ankle Brachial Index, Vascular Calcification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review