Key result
Non-lab risk tools match lab-based counterparts overall but lose accuracy in patients with diabetes.
Why the study?
Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools are feasible alternatives in low- and middle-income countries, but their effectiveness compared to laboratory-based tools has not been adequately tested.
Do non-laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools perform comparably to laboratory-based tools in individuals in rural India?
Cross-Sectional
Do non-laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools perform comparably to laboratory-based tools in individuals in rural India?
Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools perform relatively well compared to laboratory-based tools in rural India, but may be less useful for risk stratification in individuals with diabetes.
May support non-lab CV risk tools in rural India without diabetes; leaves open prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools are feasible alternatives to laboratory-based tools in low- and middle-income countries. However, their effectiveness compared to their laboratory-based counterparts has not been adequately tested. AIM: We compared estimates from laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based risk prediction tools in a low- and middle-income country setting. METHODS: , for risk band). RESULTS: = 0.88). The level of agreement was greater among women than men, less in those with hypercholesterolaemia or hypertension than those without, and was particularly poor among those with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Non-laboratory-based Framingham, WHO-RS and Globorisk tools performed relatively well compared with their laboratory-based counterparts in rural India. However, they may be less useful for risk stratification when applied to individuals with diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Birhanu et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk. Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools (Framingham, WHO-RS, Globorisk) vs. Laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools was evaluated on Agreement between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based risk prediction tools. Non-laboratory-based Framingham, WHO-RS, and Globorisk tools performed relatively well compared with laboratory-based counterparts in rural India, but were less useful for individuals with diabetes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: