Key result
The Sheffield table and JBS Chart identified 10-year CHD risk of 15% with acceptable accuracy (sensitivity and specificity 90%), while WHO-ISH and JNC-VI methods had poor specificities (50%).
Why the study?
Do different risk assessment methods accurately identify high CHD and CVD risk compared to Framingham risk functions in patients with uncomplicated mild hypertension?
Population
People aged 35-64 years with uncomplicated mild systolic hypertension, n=202, from the 1995 Scottish Health…
Comparison
Five risk assessment methods: Sheffield table… vs Framingham risk functions calculating coronary…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May favor Sheffield/JBS charts for CHD risk assessment in mild hypertension; cross-sectional data leaves open prospective outcome validation.
Cross-Sectional (n=202)
Do different risk assessment methods accurately identify high CHD and CVD risk compared to Framingham risk functions in patients with uncomplicated mild hypertension?
The Sheffield table and JBS Chart provide acceptable accuracy for estimating CHD risk in uncomplicated mild hypertension, whereas WHO-ISH and JNC-VI methods suffer from poor specificity.
Yikona et al. (2002) conducted a cross-sectional in Uncomplicated mild systolic hypertension (n=202). Risk assessment methods (Sheffield table, JBS Chart, NZ Chart, WHO-ISH, JNC-VI) vs. Framingham risk functions was evaluated on Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. The Sheffield table and JBS Chart identified 10-year CHD risk of 15% with acceptable accuracy (sensitivity and specificity 90%), while WHO-ISH and JNC-VI methods had poor specificities (50%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: