Cited by 250Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors

Performance of the Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Damen, Johanna A., Pajouheshnia, Romin, Heus, Pauline, Moons, Karel G. M., Reitsma, Johannes B., Scholten, Rob J. P. M., Hooft, Lotty, Debray, Thomas P. A.·2019·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations (PCE) are widely used and advocated in guidelines for predicting 10-year risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. Over the past few decades, these models have been extensively validated within different populations, which provided mounting evidence that local tailoring is often necessary to obtain accurate predictions. The objective is to systematically review and summarize the predictive performance of three widely advocated cardiovascular risk prediction models (Framingham Wilson 1998, Framingham ATP III 2002 and PCE 2013) in men and women separately, to assess the generalizability of performance across different subgroups and geographical regions, and to determine sources of heterogeneity in the findings across studies. METHODS: A search was performed in October 2017 to identify studies investigating the predictive performance of the aforementioned models. Studies were included if they externally validated one or more of the original models in the general population for the same outcome as the original model. We assessed risk of bias for each validation and extracted data on population characteristics and model performance. Performance estimates (observed versus expected (OE) ratio and c-statistic) were summarized using a random effects models and sources of heterogeneity were explored with meta-regression. RESULTS: The search identified 1585 studies, of which 38 were included, describing a total of 112 external validations. Results indicate that, on average, all models overestimate the 10-year risk of CHD and CVD (pooled OE ratio ranged from 0.58 (95% CI 0.43-0.73; Wilson men) to 0.79 (95% CI 0.60-0.97; ATP III women)). Overestimation was most pronounced for high-risk individuals and European populations. Further, discriminative performance was better in women for all models. There was considerable heterogeneity in the c-statistic between studies, likely due to differences in population characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The Framingham Wilson, ATP III and PCE discriminate comparably well but all overestimate the risk of developing CVD, especially in higher risk populations. Because the extent of miscalibration substantially varied across settings, we highly recommend that researchers further explore reasons for overprediction and that the models be updated for specific populations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-019-1340-7

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

13 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Damen, J. A., Pajouheshnia, R., Heus, P., Moons, K. G. M., Reitsma, J. B., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Hooft, L., & Debray, T. P. A.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Damen, Johanna A.
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2019-06-13
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
109-109
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953059279
Cited by
250
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Cochrane Methods Innovation Funds Round 2 (MTH001F)
  • Cochrane Trusted methods and Support for Cochrane Reviews of Prognostic studies (-)
  • Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (918.10.615, 91208004, 91617050)
  • CREW NHS project (2013T083)
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
Framingham risk score, Pooled Cohort Equations, cardiovascular risk prediction, coronary heart disease risk, risk overestimation, model calibration, discrimination (statistics), sex differences, population heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Aged, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, 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