Literature DB >> 16832160

Risk scoring in the assessment of cardiovascular risk.

Andrew Beswick1, Peter Brindle.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular risk scoring is incorporated in guidelines and recommended for targeting preventive treatment. Evidence is required on the most appropriate method, its accuracy in a given population, and its effectiveness in favourably influencing clinical behaviour and health outcomes. RECENT
FINDINGS: Recent risk scores address inaccuracies that arise when methods are transferred between populations, and specific methods and recalibrations are described for use in low-risk populations. Ethnic and social differences in risk are also recognized in the context of cardiovascular risk scoring. More sensitive measures of known risk factors and numerous emerging risk factors are reported and new statistical methods and sources of data suggested. Little emphasis has been placed on evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of cardiovascular risk scores. Education in cardiovascular risk assessment may help improve uptake of methods by healthcare professionals.
SUMMARY: Numerous risk scoring methods are available to the healthcare professional but use is patchy. Accuracy varies between populations and methods have been developed to compensate for some of this variability. If risk scoring methods are to be widely used in general practice, evidence is required on both the accuracy of methods in appropriate populations and their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16832160     DOI: 10.1097/01.mol.0000236362.56216.44

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Lipidol        ISSN: 0957-9672            Impact factor:   4.776


  17 in total

Review 1.  Cardiovascular risk assessment: a global perspective.

Authors:  Dong Zhao; Jing Liu; Wuxiang Xie; Yue Qi
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 2.  Contemporary Review of Risk Scores in Prediction of Coronary and Cardiovascular Deaths.

Authors:  Jose B Cruz Rodriguez; Khan O Mohammad; Haider Alkhateeb
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Recalibration of the SCORE risk chart for the Russian population.

Authors:  Dmitri A Jdanov; Alexander D Deev; Domantas Jasilionis; Svetlana A Shalnova; Maria A Shkolnikova; Vladimir M Shkolnikov
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 4.  Cardiovascular risk models for South Asian populations: a systematic review.

Authors:  Dipesh P Gopal; Juliet A Usher-Smith
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 3.380

5.  Evaluating the use of mobile phone technology to enhance cardiovascular disease screening by community health workers.

Authors:  Sam Surka; Sisira Edirippulige; Krisela Steyn; Thomas Gaziano; Thandi Puoane; Naomi Levitt
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 4.046

Review 6.  Recent Update to the US Cholesterol Treatment Guidelines: A Comparison With International Guidelines.

Authors:  Matthew Nayor; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Thomas C Lehman; Holly Massett; Simon C Lee; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  A composite scoring of genotypes discriminates coronary heart disease risk beyond conventional risk factors in the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study.

Authors:  M Junyent; K L Tucker; J Shen; Y-C Lee; C E Smith; J Mattei; C-Q Lai; L D Parnell; J M Ordovas
Journal:  Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2009-06-05       Impact factor: 4.222

9.  Mir-1, miR-122, miR-132, and miR-133 Are Related to Subclinical Aortic Atherosclerosis Associated with Metabolic Syndrome.

Authors:  Agnė Šatrauskienė; Rokas Navickas; Aleksandras Laucevičius; Tomas Krilavičius; Rūta Užupytė; Monika Zdanytė; Ligita Ryliškytė; Agnė Jucevičienė; Paul Holvoet
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Self-reported leisure time physical activity: a useful assessment tool in everyday health care.

Authors:  Lars Rödjer; Ingibjörg H Jonsdottir; Annika Rosengren; Lena Björck; Gunnar Grimby; Dag S Thelle; Georgios Lappas; Mats Börjesson
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.