Cited by 1,084Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Research

The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in Type II diabetes (UKPDS 56)

STEVENS, Richard J., KOTHARI, Viti, ADLER, Amanda I., STRATTON, Irene M.·2001·Clinical Science

Abstract

A definitive model for predicting absolute risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in male and female people with Type II diabetes is not yet available. This paper provides an equation for estimating the risk of new CHD events in people with Type II diabetes, based on data from 4540 U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study male and female patients. Unlike previously published risk equations, the model is diabetes-specific and incorporates glycaemia, systolic blood pressure and lipid levels as risk factors, in addition to age, sex, ethnic group, smoking status and time since diagnosis of diabetes. All variables included in the final model were statistically significant (P<0.001, except smoking for which P=0.0013) in likelihood ratio testing. This model provides the estimates of CHD risk required by current guidelines for the primary prevention of CHD in Type II diabetes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1042/cs20000335

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The lower the CAD risk, the higher the chance of a false positive.

    “The lower the CAD risk, the higher the chance of a false positive”

    From Exercise and Type 2 Diabetes (2010) · cites this paper as [248]

  • The 50% death rate in the conventional-therapy group underscores the poor prognosis for such patients in the absence of intensive treatment.

    “During the entire follow-up period, the rate of death among patients in the conventionaltherapy group was 50%, a finding that underscores the poor prognosis for such patients in the absence of intensive treatment.20”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
STEVENS, R. J., KOTHARI, V., ADLER, A. I., & STRATTON, I. M.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Clinical Science
Published
2001-12-01
Volume
101
Issue
6
Pages
671
ISSN
0143-5221 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117191092
Cited by
1,084
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 59
FWCI
12.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular risk prediction, risk prediction model, glycemia, systolic blood pressure, serum lipids, primary prevention, smoking, sex differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Pressure, Coronary Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Angiopathies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Smoking, Models, Statistical, Survival Rate, 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