Why the study?
Suitability and accuracy of cardiovascular 10-year risk scoring systems for medium- to low-resource countries, including Asian populations, remains challenging because most tools were developed from non-Asian cohorts.
What are the consolidated range values of internal and external validity and methodological perspectives of globally used CVD 10-year risk scores?
Comparison
Five global CVD 10-year risk prediction tools (FRS, WHO CVD, QRISK, ASCVD, SCORE) and updated versions (11 altogether)
Design
Rapid systematic review
Key result
Globally used cardiovascular risk scoring algorithms can accurately differentiate 10-year CVD risk by 63-86% considering both internal and external validity.
Authors
Loading...
Supports use of global CVD risk scores for stratification now; confirms overall validity while extending need for population-specific updates.
Systematic Review
What are the consolidated range values of internal and external validity and methodological perspectives of globally used CVD 10-year risk scores?
Globally used CVD risk scoring algorithms demonstrate fair to excellent validity (63-86% accuracy), but require updating and validation to improve performance and address gene-environment interactions, particularly for specific populations like Asians and those in low-to-middle-income countries.
Adhikari et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular disease risk prediction. Cardiovascular 10-yr Risk Prediction Scores was evaluated on Accuracy (C-statistics) of CVD 10-yr risk prediction. Globally used cardiovascular risk scoring algorithms can accurately differentiate 10-year CVD risk by 63-86% considering both internal and external validity.