Jennifer Sacramento-Pacheco1, Gonzalo Duarte-Clíments2, Juan Gómez-Salgado3, Macarena Romero-Martín4, María Begoña Sánchez-Gómez5. 1. Polyclinic Centre of Canarias, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Calle Alfonso Trujillo, s/n (Edificio Temait III), 38300, La Orotava, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. Electronic address: jennifersacramentopacheco@gmail.com. 2. Multiprofessional Teaching Unit of Family and Community Care, Canary Islands Health Service, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Hospital Universitario Ntra. Sra. de Candelaria, Ctra. del Rosario, 145, 38010 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. Electronic address: gonzaloduartecliments@gmail.com. 3. University of Huelva, Department of Nursing, Facultad de Enfermería, Campus del Carmen, Avda. Tres de Marzo s/n, 21071, Huelva, Spain; Espíritu Santo University, Guayaquil, Ecuador. Electronic address: jgsalgad@gmail.com. 4. Red Cross Nursing University Center, University of Sevilla, Avda Cruz Roja s/n. Dpdo, 41009, Sevilla, Spain. Electronic address: mromero@cruzroja.es. 5. University School of Nursing Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, University of La Laguna, Hospital Universitario Ntra. Sra. De Candelaria, Ctra. del Rosario, 145, 38010, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. Electronic address: begonasanchez@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to describe cardiovascular risk (CVR) assessment methods and to identify evidence-based practice recommendations when dealing with population at risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. REVIEW METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: A literature review following the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology was conducted. By using appropriate key terms, literature searches were conducted in PubMed, SciELO, Cochrane Library, Dialnet, ENFISPO, Medigraphic, ScienceDirect, Cuiden, and Lilacs databases. A complementary search on websites related to the area of interest was conducted. Articles published in English or Spanish in peer-review journals between 2010 and 2017. Critical appraisal for methodological quality was conducted. Data was extracted using ad-hoc tables and qualitatively synthesized. RESULTS: After eliminating duplicates, 55325 records remained, and 1432 records were selected for screening. Out of these, 88 full-text articles were selected for eligibility criteria, and finally, 67 studies were selected for this review, and 25 studies were selected for evidence synthesis. In total, 23 CVR assessment tools have been identified, pioneered by the Framingham study. Qualitative findings were grouped into four thematic areas: assessment tools and scores, CVR indicators, comparative models, and evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to adapt the instruments to the epidemiological reality of the population. The most appropriate way to estimate CVR is to choose the assessment tool that best suits individual conditions, accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of the patient. More research is required to determine a single, adequate, and reliable tool.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to describe cardiovascular risk (CVR) assessment methods and to identify evidence-based practice recommendations when dealing with population at risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. REVIEW METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: A literature review following the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology was conducted. By using appropriate key terms, literature searches were conducted in PubMed, SciELO, Cochrane Library, Dialnet, ENFISPO, Medigraphic, ScienceDirect, Cuiden, and Lilacs databases. A complementary search on websites related to the area of interest was conducted. Articles published in English or Spanish in peer-review journals between 2010 and 2017. Critical appraisal for methodological quality was conducted. Data was extracted using ad-hoc tables and qualitatively synthesized. RESULTS: After eliminating duplicates, 55325 records remained, and 1432 records were selected for screening. Out of these, 88 full-text articles were selected for eligibility criteria, and finally, 67 studies were selected for this review, and 25 studies were selected for evidence synthesis. In total, 23 CVR assessment tools have been identified, pioneered by the Framingham study. Qualitative findings were grouped into four thematic areas: assessment tools and scores, CVR indicators, comparative models, and evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to adapt the instruments to the epidemiological reality of the population. The most appropriate way to estimate CVR is to choose the assessment tool that best suits individual conditions, accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of the patient. More research is required to determine a single, adequate, and reliable tool.
Authors: Paula J Martinez; Marta Agudiez; Dolores Molero; Marta Martin-Lorenzo; Montserrat Baldan-Martin; Aranzazu Santiago-Hernandez; Juan Manuel García-Segura; Felipe Madruga; Martha Cabrera; Eva Calvo; Gema Ruiz-Hurtado; Maria G Barderas; Fernando Vivanco; Luis M Ruilope; Gloria Alvarez-Llamas Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Audrey A Opoku-Acheampong; Richard R Rosenkranz; Koushik Adhikari; Nancy Muturi; Cindy Logan; Tandalayo Kidd Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 3.390