Key result
A simple, non-laboratory-based CVD risk score showed high correlation (Spearman coefficients 0.88 to 0.986) and 90% to 97% agreement in risk categorization compared to laboratory-based scores.
Why the study?
Does a non-laboratory-based CVD risk score accurately characterize absolute CVD risk compared to laboratory-based scores in South African populations?
Population
14,772 adults aged 25 to 74 years from thirteen cross-sectional South African populations, plus a…
Comparison
Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk… vs Six laboratory-based risk scores
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May support simplified CVD screening in resource-limited South African settings; leaves open need for prospective outcome validation.
Cross-Sectional (n=14,772)
Yes
Does a non-laboratory-based CVD risk score accurately characterize absolute CVD risk compared to laboratory-based scores in South African populations?
Effect estimate: Spearman correlation 0.88 to 0.986
A simple, non-laboratory-based CVD risk score performs similarly to established laboratory-based scores in South African populations, offering a cost-effective and efficient primary screening tool for resource-limited settings.
Gaziano et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=14,772). Non-laboratory-based CVD risk score vs. Laboratory-based CVD risk scores (Framingham, SCORE, CUORE) was evaluated on Correlation and agreement in risk characterization between non-laboratory and laboratory-based scores (Spearman correlation 0.88 to 0.986). A simple, non-laboratory-based CVD risk score showed high correlation (Spearman coefficients 0.88 to 0.986) and 90% to 97% agreement in risk categorization compared to laboratory-based scores.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: