Key result
Non-laboratory CVD risk scores show ~94% concordance with lab-based tools in resource-limited settings.
Why the study?
The comparability of laboratory- and non-laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk estimates in urban black Africans was not established, limiting utility in resource-constrained settings.
Does non-laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk assessment compare favorably to laboratory-based assessment in urban-dwelling South Africans?
Population
1,025 black African men and women aged 25-74 years in Cape Town, South Africa
Comparison
Framingham laboratory-based vs non-laboratory-based and NHANES I non-laboratory-based CVD risk equations
Design
Cross-sectional study
Authors
Loading...
13% of men and 6% of women had high 10-year CVD risk; leaves open whether non-laboratory equations can guide screening in this population.
Cross-Sectional (n=1,025)
Does non-laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk assessment compare favorably to laboratory-based assessment in urban-dwelling South Africans?
Absolute Event Rate: 12.7% vs 9.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk scores correlate highly with laboratory-based scores in urban South Africans, offering a cost-effective alternative for risk stratification in resource-constrained settings.
Peer et al. (2014) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=1,025). Non-laboratory-based Framingham CVD risk assessment vs. Laboratory-based Framingham CVD risk assessment was evaluated on Prevalence of high 10-year CVD risk (≥20%) (p=<0.001). Non-laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk estimates were highly correlated with laboratory-based estimates (concordance 0.915-0.963), illustrating their utility for risk stratification in resource-constrained settings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: