Literature DB >> 10220632

How generalizable are coronary risk prediction models? Comparison of Framingham and two national cohorts.

Y Liao1, D L McGee, R S Cooper, M B Sutkowski.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous models used to predict individual risk of death from coronary heart disease (CHD) were developed from data of 3 decades ago from the Framingham Heart Study. CHD mortality rates have declined markedly since that period as a result of improvement in both risk factor status and medical interventions. Generalization of the results from this one study to the population at large remains a matter of concern. We compared predictive functions derived from the major risk factors for CHD from Framingham and 2 more recent national cohorts, the First and Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I and NHANES II). METHODS AND
RESULTS: The participants included 1846 men and 2323 women 35 to 69 years of age and free of CHD at the fourth examination (1954 to 1958) from the Framingham Study; 2753 men and 3858 women from the NHANES I (1971 to 1975); and 2655 men and 3050 women from NHANES II (1976 to 1980). The 3 cohorts were monitored for 24, 20, and 15 years, respectively. Significant heterogeneity existed among studies in the magnitude of the Cox coefficients for the individual factors (ie, age, systolic blood pressure, serum total cholesterol, and smoking status), especially among men. When risk factors were considered collectively, however, functions derived from and applied to different cohorts had a similar ability to rank individual risk. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0. 71 to 0.76 in men and 0.76 to 0.81 in women when different risk functions were applied to their own population or to a second population. The cumulative CHD survival observed in women in the 2 national cohorts was close to what was predicted from the Framingham equation. However, Framingham overestimated the cumulative CHD mortality rates in men in NHANES I and NHANES II.
CONCLUSIONS: The Framingham risk model for the prediction of CHD mortality rates provides a reasonable rank ordering of risk for individuals in the US white population for the period 1975 to 1990. However, prediction of absolute risk is less accurate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10220632     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-8703(99)70407-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  27 in total

1.  Measurement of carotid intima-media thickness and carotid plaque detection for cardiovascular risk assessment.

Authors:  Heather M Johnson; James H Stein
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  Revisiting Rose: strategies for reducing coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Douglas G Manuel; Jenny Lim; Peter Tanuseputro; Geoffrey M Anderson; David A Alter; Andreas Laupacis; Cameron A Mustard
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-18

3.  Can non-physician health-care workers assess and manage cardiovascular risk in primary care?

Authors:  Dele O Abegunde; Bakuti Shengelia; Anne Luyten; Alexandra Cameron; Francesca Celletti; Sania Nishtar; Vasu Pandurangi; Shanthi Mendis
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 9.408

4.  Carotid intima-media thickness: can it close the "detection gap" for cardiovascular risk?

Authors:  Thomas C Gerber; Allen J Taylor
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Family history and body mass index predict perceived risks of diabetes and heart attack among community-dwelling Caucasian, Filipino, Korean, and Latino Americans--DiLH Survey.

Authors:  Yoshimi Fukuoka; JiWon Choi; Melinda S Bender; Prisila Gonzalez; Shoshana Arai
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 5.602

7.  Need for an Ethical Framework for Testing for Systemic Diseases in Dental Clinics.

Authors:  Marushka Leanne Silveira; Amit Chattopadhyay
Journal:  Ethics Biol Eng Med       Date:  2011-04-01

Review 8.  Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians.

Authors:  Stacey Sheridan; Michael Pignone; Cynthia Mulrow
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Hip bone density predicts breast cancer risk independently of Gail score: results from the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Zhao Chen; Leslie Arendell; Mikel Aickin; Jane Cauley; Cora E Lewis; Rowan Chlebowski
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 24.094

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.