Key result
Framingham Risk Score outperforms Q-RISK, Reynolds, and ASCVD calculators in predicting CVD prognostic factors.
Why the study?
Early prediction of CVD risk is essential to reduce disease burden, but the superiority and most reliable prognosis parameters among available risk calculators needed evaluation.
Does the Framingham Risk Score calculator better predict CVD risk compared to Q-RISK, Reynolds, and ASCVD calculators?
Observational (n=150)
Does the Framingham Risk Score calculator better predict CVD risk compared to Q-RISK, Reynolds, and ASCVD calculators?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The Framingham Risk Score calculator was found to be superior to Q-RISK, Reynolds, and ASCVD calculators in predicting CVD risk, identifying age, weight, total cholesterol, and hemoglobin as key prognostic parameters.
OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common non-communicable disease and the leading cause of death worldwide. To reduce the global burden of CVD and related morbidity and mortality, early prediction of CVD risk is essential. Various tools are available to access the risk of cardiovascular disorders. In the present study, we evaluated four risk score calculators associated to CVD for superiority and most reliable CVD prognosis parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present prospective study, we investigated the probability of CVD in 150 individuals, including both men and women, using four different cardiovascular risk assessment estimators (Framingham Risk Score [FRS] Calculator, Q-RISK calculator, Reynolds score calculator, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator) and evaluated how closely they were related to 16 selected parameters. The four risk estimators shared several common parameters, such as age, smoking status, and blood pressure; however, each of them also used some unique parameters. We used statistical analysis to reduce the number of parameters necessary to predict CVD. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed a significant correlation between the main factors responsible for CVD risk. The analysis revealed that out of the four risk calculators tested, the FRS calculator was superior to the others because it showed more significant corroboration with statistical tools and could better predict the most important prognostic factors in CVD. CONCLUSIONS: In all four risk estimators, the parameters that affected risk most significantly and conferred the most reliable CVD prognosis were age, weight, total cholesterol, and hemoglobin levels. With that FRS calculator was superior to the others.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khandia et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease (n=150). Framingham Risk Score (FRS) Calculator vs. Q-RISK, Reynolds, and ASCVD risk calculators was evaluated on Superiority and most reliable CVD prognosis parameters. The Framingham Risk Score calculator was superior to Q-RISK, Reynolds, and ASCVD calculators in predicting the most important prognostic factors for cardiovascular disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: