Key result
This study is a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews to assess the effect of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, with no results reported yet.
Why the study?
Does the use of cardiovascular risk scoring tools improve outcomes compared with standard care in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?
Systematic Review
Does the use of cardiovascular risk scoring tools improve outcomes compared with standard care in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?
This protocol outlines an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of routine cardiovascular risk scoring in primary prevention.
Protocol for overview of CV risk scoring reviews; leaves open whether routine use improves primary prevention outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Major clinical practice guidelines recommend assessing risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) using absolute/global/total CVD risk scores. However, the effectiveness of using them in clinical practice, despite publication of numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is still poorly understood. To summarise and analyse current knowledge in this field, we will carry out an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs). The objective of this overview will be to assess the effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD compared with standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include SRs and meta-analyses which take into account RCTs and quasi-RCTs investigating the effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD. SRs will be retrieved from 4 bibliographical databases and reference lists of identified reviews. Additionally, the PROSPERO database will be searched for unpublished, ongoing or recently completed SRs. 2 reviewers will assess the SRs independently for eligibility and bias. The data will be extracted to a special form. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion. In case of lack of consensus, a third author will arbitrate. The overview of SRs will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for overview of SRs. We will summarise evidence concerning whether use of the absolute/global/total CVD risk scoring tools in primary prevention of CVD is effective and supported with scientific data or not. If we face unsatisfactory confirmation, we will highlight a need for further research and advice on how to plan such a study. We will submit the results of our study for peer-review publication in a journal indexed in the international bibliographic database of biomedical information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Studziński et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review in Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular risk scoring vs. Standard care was evaluated on Effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment. This study is a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews to assess the effect of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, with no results reported yet.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: