BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: External validation of the Framingham stroke risk function has been rarely performed. We assessed its predictive ability in a population-based cohort of French elderly. METHODS: The sample comprised 6913 subjects from the 3C Study, aged 65 to 84 at baseline, who were followed up to 6 years. Predictive accuracy of the original Framingham stroke risk function was assessed in a 3-step procedure: comparison between the Framingham and 3C cohorts of the prevalence of selected risk factors and the associated relative risks (RR) for stroke, comparison of the predicted to the observed number of stroke events (calibration), and ability to separate high-risk from low-risk participants (discrimination). We also compared predictive performances of the original Framingham, the recalibrated Framingham, and the local stroke risk functions. RESULTS: During follow-up, 110 incident strokes occurred. For most risk factors, RRs were comparable between the 2 cohorts, except for age in women. The original Framingham stroke risk function applied to the 3C cohort overestimated the 6-year absolute risk for stroke by a factor of 3.7 for men and 4.4 for women. However, the recalibrated Framingham and 3C functions did not show any over- or underestimation of stroke risk. The 3 stroke risk functions (original, recalibrated, and 3C) provided acceptable discrimination with areas under the ROC curve ranging from 0.67 to 0.73. CONCLUSIONS: The original Framingham stroke risk function strongly overestimated the stroke risk for 3C participants. Derived Framingham stroke score sheets should not be directly used by physicians in the French elderly population.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: External validation of the Framingham stroke risk function has been rarely performed. We assessed its predictive ability in a population-based cohort of French elderly. METHODS: The sample comprised 6913 subjects from the 3C Study, aged 65 to 84 at baseline, who were followed up to 6 years. Predictive accuracy of the original Framingham stroke risk function was assessed in a 3-step procedure: comparison between the Framingham and 3C cohorts of the prevalence of selected risk factors and the associated relative risks (RR) for stroke, comparison of the predicted to the observed number of stroke events (calibration), and ability to separate high-risk from low-risk participants (discrimination). We also compared predictive performances of the original Framingham, the recalibrated Framingham, and the local stroke risk functions. RESULTS: During follow-up, 110 incident strokes occurred. For most risk factors, RRs were comparable between the 2 cohorts, except for age in women. The original Framingham stroke risk function applied to the 3C cohort overestimated the 6-year absolute risk for stroke by a factor of 3.7 for men and 4.4 for women. However, the recalibrated Framingham and 3C functions did not show any over- or underestimation of stroke risk. The 3 stroke risk functions (original, recalibrated, and 3C) provided acceptable discrimination with areas under the ROC curve ranging from 0.67 to 0.73. CONCLUSIONS: The original Framingham stroke risk function strongly overestimated the stroke risk for 3C participants. Derived Framingham stroke score sheets should not be directly used by physicians in the French elderly population.
Authors: John S Ho; John J Cannaday; Carolyn E Barlow; Dale B Reinhardt; Wendy A Wade Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-11-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Carole Dufouil; Alexa Beiser; Leslie A McLure; Philip A Wolf; Christophe Tzourio; Virginia J Howard; Andrew J Westwood; Jayandra J Himali; Lisa Sullivan; Hugo J Aparicio; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Karen Ritchie; Carlos S Kase; Aleksandra Pikula; Jose R Romero; Ralph B D'Agostino; Cécilia Samieri; Ramachandran S Vasan; Genevieve Chêne; George Howard; Sudha Seshadri Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Bart S Ferket; Bob J H van Kempen; Renske G Wieberdink; Ewout W Steyerberg; Peter J Koudstaal; Albert Hofman; Eyal Shahar; Rebecca F Gottesman; Wayne Rosamond; Jorge R Kizer; Richard A Kronmal; Bruce M Psaty; W T Longstreth; Thomas Mosley; Aaron R Folsom; M G Myriam Hunink; M Arfan Ikram Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jessica K Paulus; Lana Y H Lai; Christine Lundquist; Ali Daneshmand; Hannah Buettner; Jennifer S Lutz; Gowri Raman; Benjamin S Wessler; David M Kent Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Priya Parmar; Rita Krishnamurthi; M Arfan Ikram; Albert Hofman; Saira S Mirza; Yury Varakin; Michael Kravchenko; Michael Piradov; Amanda G Thrift; Bo Norrving; Wenzhi Wang; Dipes Kumar Mandal; Suzanne Barker-Collo; Ramesh Sahathevan; Stephen Davis; Gustavo Saposnik; Miia Kivipelto; Shireen Sindi; Natan M Bornstein; Maurice Giroud; Yannick Béjot; Michael Brainin; Richie Poulton; K M Venkat Narayan; Manuel Correia; António Freire; Yoshihiro Kokubo; David Wiebers; George Mensah; Nasser F BinDhim; P Alan Barber; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Graeme J Hankey; Man Mohan Mehndiratta; Shobhana Azhagammal; Norlinah Mohd Ibrahim; Max Abbott; Elaine Rush; Patria Hume; Tasleem Hussein; Rohit Bhattacharjee; Mitali Purohit; Valery L Feigin Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 5.266