Key result
Repeat cardiovascular risk assessments slightly improve risk discrimination over a single baseline evaluation.
Why the study?
Does repeat cardiovascular risk assessment over four years improve cardiovascular event risk prediction compared to a single risk assessment in individuals free of cardiovascular disease?
Cohort (n=12,197)
No
Does repeat cardiovascular risk assessment over four years improve cardiovascular event risk prediction compared to a single risk assessment in individuals free of cardiovascular disease?
p-value: p=<0.001
Repeat cardiovascular risk assessment after four years provides only a modest improvement in discrimination and does not significantly improve risk classification compared to a single up-to-date assessment.
Repeat assessments offer only modest discrimination gains without better classification; leaves open whether serial monitoring adds value beyond single up-to-date evaluation.
Using information from repeat risk assessments over a period of four years modestly improved prediction, compared to using data from a single risk assessment. However, this approach did not improve risk classification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chamnan et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease (n=12,197). Framingham risk score assessment (repeat) vs. Single Framingham risk score assessment was evaluated on Incident cardiovascular events rate (p=<0.001). Using information from repeat risk assessments over a period of four years slightly improved the ability to discriminate individuals according to their cardiovascular risk, with an incidence of cardiovascular events of 13.8 per 1,000 person-years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: