Key result
Adapted FRS using self-reported hypertension matches the original objective score with ~98% predictive accuracy.
Why the study?
The Framingham risk score relies on objective blood pressure and lipid measurements that are not always available in large population surveys, limiting its use.
Does an adapted Framingham Risk Score using self-reported hypertension and dyslipidemia accurately estimate cardiovascular risk compared to the original FRS in male shift workers?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,414)
Yes
Does an adapted Framingham Risk Score using self-reported hypertension and dyslipidemia accurately estimate cardiovascular risk compared to the original FRS in male shift workers?
An adapted Framingham Risk Score using self-reported hypertension and dyslipidemia provides a highly accurate alternative to the original score for estimating cardiovascular risk in epidemiological studies where direct measurements are unfeasible.
BACKGROUND: Framingham risk score (FRS) is an important cardiovascular risk assessment tool, based on objective measurements of blood pressure and lipid profile, among other factors. However, in large population surveys, these measures are not always available, which limits their use. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the performance of the FRS predictive results using subjective measures. METHODOLOGY: Cross-sectional study of 1,414 male rotating shift workers in an iron ore extraction company. The original FRS was calculated using objective systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, total cholesterol (TC), and HDL cholesterol. The modified FRS was calculated using subjective measurements of blood pressure and lipid profile, based on self-reported medical diagnosis and use of medications for these conditions. Three adaptations were proposed: (1) FRS-SAH, which considers only self-reported hypertension; (2) FRS-DLP, based solely on self-reported dyslipidemia; and (3) FRS-SAH and DLP, which integrates both self-reported factors. Agreement between the two scores was assessed using the kappa coefficient and the Bland-Altman analysis. The accuracy of the scores in predicting cardiovascular risk was compared using the ROC curve and the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The scatter plot showed a strong correlation (r = 0.9036, p < 0.001) between adapted FRS-SAH and original FRS. The ROC curve showed an AUC with results above 0.85 for all models, confirming the effectiveness of the adapted scale. Bland-Altman indicated good precision between the measurements. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that all the factors associated with CVD-risk by the original FRS were similar to those associated with the adapted FRS. Among the adaptations, the FRS-SAH demonstrated the highest correlation and predictive accuracy. CONCLUSION: The adapted FRS proved to be effective in estimating CVD-risk, showing high correlation, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to the original FRS. Adaptive FRS based on self-reported hypertension, showed the best performance, making it a reliable alternative for contexts where direct measurements are not feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Menezes-Júnior et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk (n=1,414). Adapted Framingham Risk Score (FRS-SAH) vs. Original Framingham Risk Score was evaluated on Correlation between adapted FRS-SAH and original FRS (r = 0.9036, p=<0.001). The adapted Framingham Risk Score based on self-reported hypertension demonstrated a strong correlation (r = 0.9036) and high predictive accuracy (AUC 0.9768) compared to the original objective score.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: