The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To derive a new cardiovascular disease risk score (QRISK) for the United Kingdom and to validate its performance against the established Framingham cardiovascular disease algorithm and a newly developed Scottish score (ASSIGN). DESIGN: Prospective open cohort study using routinely collected data from general practice. SETTING: UK practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. PARTICIPANTS: The derivation cohort consisted of 1.28 million patients, aged 35-74 years, registered at 318 practices between 1 January 1995 and 1 April 2007 and who were free of diabetes and existing cardiovascular disease. The validation cohort consisted of 0.61 million patients from 160 practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First recorded diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (incident diagnosis between 1 January 1995 and 1 April 2007): myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke, and transient ischaemic attacks. Risk factors were age, sex, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, ratio of total serum cholesterol to high density lipoprotein, body mass index, family history of coronary heart disease in first degree relative aged less than 60, area measure of deprivation, and existing treatment with antihypertensive agent. RESULTS: A cardiovascular disease risk algorithm (QRISK) was developed in the derivation cohort. In the validation cohort the observed 10 year risk of a cardiovascular event was 6.60% (95% confidence interval 6.48% to 6.72%) in women and 9.28% (9.14% to 9.43%) in men. Overall the Framingham algorithm over-predicted cardiovascular disease risk at 10 years by 35%, ASSIGN by 36%, and QRISK by 0.4%. Measures of discrimination tended to be higher for QRISK than for the Framingham algorithm and it was better calibrated to the UK population than either the Framingham or ASSIGN models. Using QRISK 8.5% of patients aged 35-74 are at high risk (20% risk or higher over 10 years) compared with 13% when using the Framingham algorithm and 14% when using ASSIGN. Using QRISK 34% of women and 73% of men aged 64-75 would be at high risk compared with 24% and 86% according to the Framingham algorithm. UK estimates for 2005 based on QRISK give 3.2 million patients aged 35-74 at high risk, with the Framingham algorithm predicting 4.7 million and ASSIGN 5.1 million. Overall, 53 668 patients in the validation dataset (9% of the total) would be reclassified from high to low risk or vice versa using QRISK compared with the Framingham algorithm. CONCLUSION: QRISK performed at least as well as the Framingham model for discrimination and was better calibrated to the UK population than either the Framingham model or ASSIGN. QRISK is likely to provide more appropriate risk estimates to help identify high risk patients on the basis of age, sex, and social deprivation. It is therefore likely to be a more equitable tool to inform management decisions and help ensure treatments are directed towards those most likely to benefit. It includes additional variables which improve risk estimates for patients with a positive family history or those on antihypertensive treatment. However, since the validation was performed in a similar population to the population from which the algorithm was derived, it potentially has a "home advantage." Further validation in other populations is therefore required.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories
Wilson, P. W. F., D’Agostino, R. B., Levy, D., Belanger, A. M., Silbershatz, H., & Kannel, W. B. (1998) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.97.18.1837 · Cited by 9,581
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
Twaddle, S., & Qureshi, S. (2005) · Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.ehbc.2005.09.008 · Cited by 4,084
Multiple Imputation of Missing Values
Royston, P. (2004) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0400400301 · Cited by 2,340 · cited 1×
“We used the Cox proportional hazards model in the derivation dataset to estimate the coefficients associated with each potential risk factor for the first ever recorded diagnosis of cardiovascular disease for men and women separately. A priori we specified the variables we intended to include in the model on the basis…”
MethodDe Backer, G. (2003) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00347-6 · Cited by 2,251
Cardiovascular disease risk profiles
Anderson, K. M., Odell, P. M., Wilson, P. W. F., & Kannel, W. B. (1991) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/0002-8703(91)90861-b · Cited by 2,163
Prepared by: British Cardiac Society, B. H. S. (2005) · Heart · doi:10.1136/hrt.2005.079988 · Cited by 1,216
The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology
Royston, P., Ambler, G., & Sauerbrei, W. (1999) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/28.5.964 · Cited by 1,066
Multiple Imputation of Missing Values: Update of Ice
Royston, P. (2005) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0500500404 · Cited by 1,041
Coronary heart disease statistics.
Allender, S. E., Peto, V., Scarborough, P., Kaur, A., & Rayner, M. (2008) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 928
National service framework for coronary heart disease
Lloyd-Mostyn, R. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7261.634 · Cited by 832
Cited by
Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4067 · Cited by 9,792
European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012)
Authors/Task Force Members:, Perk, J., De Backer, G., Gohlke, H., Graham, I., Reiner, Ž., Verschuren, M., Albus, C., Benlian, P., Boysen, G., et al. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092 · Cited by 8,490
General Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary Care: The Framingham Heart Study
D’Agostino, R. B., Vasan, R. S., Pencina, M. J., Wolf, P. A., Cobain, M., Massaro, J. M., & Kannel, W. B. (2008) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.699579 · Cited by 7,491
Sterne, J. A. C., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., Wood, A. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2393 · Cited by 7,299
“article reported the development of the QRISK tool for cardiovascular risk prediction, based on a large general practice research database.”
Method2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice
Piepoli, M. F., Hoes, A. W., Agewall, S., Albus, C., Brotons, C., Catapano, A. L., Cooney, M.-T., Corrà, U., Cosyns, B., Deaton, C., et al. (2016) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106 · Cited by 6,457
Metadata
- Authors
- Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Vinogradova, Y., Robson, J., May, M., & Brindle, P.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-07-05
- Volume
- 335
- Issue
- 7611
- Pages
- 136
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2049977108
- Cited by
- 1,038
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 50.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39261.471806.55
- The paper
- Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Vinogradova, Y., Robson, J., May, M., & Brindle, P. (2007). Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39261.471806.55
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.