Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: Numerous cardiovascular risk prediction models (RPM) have been developed, however, agreement studies between these models are scarce. We aimed to assess the inter-model agreement between eight RPMs: assessing cardiovascular risk using SIGN, the Australian CVD risk score (AusCVDRisk), the Framingham Risk Score for Hard Coronary Heart Disease, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis risk score, the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE), the QRISK3 cardiovascular risk calculator, the Reynolds Risk Score, and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation-2 (SCORE2). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 11,174 40–65-year-old individuals with diagnosed metabolic syndrome from a single tertiary university hospital in Lithuania. Cardiovascular risk was calculated using the eight RPMs, and the results were categorized into high, intermediate, and low-risk groups. Inter-model agreement was quantified using Cohen’s Kappa coefficients. Results: The study revealed significant heterogeneity in risk categorizations with only 1.49% of cases where all models agree on the risk category. SCORE2 predominantly categorized participants as high-risk (67.39%), while the PCE identified the majority as low-risk (62.03%). Cohen’s Kappa coefficients ranged from −0.09 to 0.64, indicating varying degrees of inter-model agreement. Conclusions: The choice of RPM can substantially influence clinical decision-making and patient management. The PCE and AusCVDRisk models exhibited the highest degree of agreement while the SCORE2 model consistently exhibited low agreement with other models.
Navickas et al. (Thu,) studied this question.