Cited by 436Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors

Value and Limitations of Existing Scores for the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk

Open access
Cooney, Marie Therese, Dudina, Alexandra L., Graham, Ian M.·2009·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the biggest causes of death worldwide. In most people, CVD is the product of a number of causal risk factors. Several seemingly modest risk factors may, in combination, result in a much higher risk than an impressively raised single factor. For this reason, risk estimation systems have been developed to assist clinicians to assess the effects of risk factor combinations in planning management strategies. In this article, the performances of the major risk estimation systems are reviewed. Most perform usably well in populations that are similar to the one used to derive the system, and in other populations if calibrated to allow for different CVD mortality rates and different risk factor distributions. The effect of adding "new" risk factors to age, sex, smoking, lipid status, and blood pressure is usually small, but may help to appropriately reclassify some of those patients who are close to a treatment threshold to a more correct "treat/do not treat" category. Risk estimation in the young and old needs more research. Quantification of the hoped-for benefits of the multiple risk estimation approach in terms of improved outcomes is still needed. But, it is likely that the widespread use of such an approach will help to address the issues of both undertreatment and overtreatment.

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.020

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • Most guidelines adopt one of the available risk assessment systems.

    “Most guidelines use one of these risk assessment systems [6-8].”
  • Risk age is independent of the CV endpoint used, can be used in any population regardless of baseline risk or secular mortality changes, and therefore avoids recalibration.

    “Risk age has been shown to be independent of the CV endpoint used [6,8], can be used in any population regardless of baseline risk or secular changes in mortality, and therefore avoids the need for recalibration.”
  • Most risk estimation systems perform similarly in populations similar to their derivation population and can be recalibrated for other populations.

    “In practice, most risk estimation systems perform rather similarly when applied to populations recognizably similar to that from which the risk estimation system was derived, 6,7 and can be re-calibrated for use in different populations.6”

    From ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias (2011) · cites this paper as [6]

  • Risk age has been shown to be independent of the cardiovascular endpoint used.

    “Risk age has been shown to be independent of the CV endpoint used, 51,52 which bypasses the dilemma of whether to use a risk estimation system based on CVD mortality or on the more attractive but less reliable endpoint of total CVD events.”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [51]

  • Most guidelines use one of the available risk estimation systems.

    “Most guidelines use one of these risk estimation systems. 50-52”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [51]

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

1 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Matching the intensity of risk factor management with the hazard for coronary disease events. 27th Bethesda Conference, September 14 -15, 1995. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:957-1047.
  2. McGorrian C, Leong T, D'Agostino R, Graham I. Risk estimation systems in clinical use: SCORE, Heart Score and the Framingham system. In: D'Agostino R, Graham I, editors. Therapeutic Strategies in Cardiovascular Risk. Oxford, UK: Clinical Publishing, 2008.
  3. Ridker PM, Buring JE, Rifai N, Cook NR. Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardio- 1225 JACC Vol. 54, No. 14, 2009
  4. Cooney et al. September 29, 2009:1209-27 Cardiovascular Risk Estimation Systems vascular risk in women: the Reynolds Risk Score. JAMA 2007;297: 611-9.
  5. Conroy R. From epidemiological risk to clinical practice by way of statistics-a personal view. In: Graham I, D'Agostino R, editors. Therapeutic Strategies in Cardiovascular Risk. Oxford, UK: Clinical Publishing, 2008.
  6. Keil U, Liese A, Hense H, et al. Classical risk factors and their impact on incident non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality in Southern Germany. Eur Heart J 1998;19:1197-207.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooney, M. T., Dudina, A. L., & Graham, I. M.
Affiliations
Tallaght University Hospital (IE)
Corresponding author
Graham, Ian M.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-09
Volume
54
Issue
14
Pages
1209-1227
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W197402492
Cited by
436
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 26
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Keywords
cardiovascular risk assessment, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, risk factor combinations, calibration, undertreatment, overtreatment, young and elderly patients, cardiovascular mortality
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Models, Cardiovascular, Risk Factors, Risk Assessment

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