Literature DB >> 12151567

Comparative evaluation of the new Sheffield table and the modified joint British societies coronary risk prediction chart against a laboratory based risk score calculation.

K S Rabindranath1, N R Anderson, R Gama, M R Holland.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Management of borderline hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia is based on an individual's coronary heart disease (CHD) risk rather than arbitrary values for blood pressure or serum cholesterol. Prediction of CHD risk involves using tables, charts, or computer programs based on the Framingham equations. The new Sheffield table and modified joint British societies coronary risk prediction (JBS) chart are widely used. The JBS chart approximates age and systolic blood pressure, and the new Sheffield table dichotomises blood pressure, and these simplifications may lead to diagnostic inaccuracy.
METHODS: The diagnostic performance of the charts against an individualised laboratory based CHD risk calculation in 1102 subjects in primary care were evaluated and compared.
RESULTS: The new Sheffield table and modified JBS chart performed equally well with a respective diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 91.6% (95% confidence interval 86.7% to 95.1%) and 93.8% (91.1% to 97.9%), and 93.6% (90.4% to 96.0%) and 94.7% (92.6% to 96.1%) at 10 year CHD risk of 15%; and of 95.2% (82.8% to 99.4%) and 97.9% (96.8% to 98.7%), and 90.5% (75.6% to 97.4%) and 100% (99.7% to 100%) at 10 year CHD risk of 30%. The modified JBS chart graphic display provides graded risk, which may be an advantage over the new Sheffield table, which identifies thresholds of risk. The new Sheffield table, unlike any other method, can be used as screening tool for cholesterol measurement.
CONCLUSIONS: The new Sheffield table and modified JBS chart are valid for use in primary care since their diagnostic accuracy is unaffected by approximations in age and blood pressure. It is suggested that practitioners should choose whichever risk assessment tool they are comfortable with and use it.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12151567      PMCID: PMC1742347          DOI: 10.1136/pmj.78.919.269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Postgrad Med J        ISSN: 0032-5473            Impact factor:   2.401


  15 in total

1.  Risk assessment in primary prevention of coronary heart disease: randomised comparison of three scoring methods.

Authors:  C G Isles; L D Ritchie; P Murchie; J Norrie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-11

2.  Using the Framingham model to predict heart disease in the United Kingdom: retrospective study.

Authors:  S Ramachandran; J M French; M P Vanderpump; P Croft; R H Neary
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-11

3.  Laboratory-based calculation of coronary heart disease risk.

Authors:  T Geberhiwot; A F Jones; W A Bartlett; D Husband; S C Martin
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 8.327

4.  Hyperlipidaemia and primary prevention of coronary heart disease: are the right patients being treated?

Authors:  S Ramachandran; M H Labib
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Risk       Date:  2000-08

5.  Framingham at 50.

Authors:  F H Messerli; B S Mittler
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-09-26       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Preventing ischaemic heart disease in one general practice: from one patient, through clinical audit, needs assessment, and commissioning into quality improvement.

Authors:  M Pringle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-24

7.  A simple computer program for guiding management of cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing.

Authors:  A D Hingorani; P Vallance
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-09

8.  Comparative accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction methods in primary care patients.

Authors:  A F Jones; J Walker; C Jewkes; F L Game; W A Bartlett; T Marshall; G R Bayly
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  Cardiovascular disease risk profiles.

Authors:  K M Anderson; P M Odell; P W Wilson; W B Kannel
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study.

Authors:  S A Grover; I Lowensteyn; K L Esrey; Y Steinert; L Joseph; M Abrahamowicz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15
View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.