BMJ 2002;324:1217 ( 18 May )

Letters

New score is needed to predict risk of coronary heart disease

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR---McManus et al show the difficulties inherent in using currently available risk scoring systems for cardiovascular disease, with only moderate agreement between methods.1 They also show the methods' relatively low accuracy when compared with independently calculated Framingham risk estimates.

Much of the inaccuracy was due to a lack of risk factor information in case records and use of risk scoring in people with diagnosed cardiovascular disease, who should be considered at high risk and treated accordingly. As in previous comparison studies, the Framingham risk equations were used as the gold standard by which the performance of all the Framingham derived risk assessment tools was evaluated.2

Important treatment decisions are being based on the findings of risk assessment tools. Surprisingly, little effort has been put into assessing the accuracy of the Framingham risk score in contemporary European populations. Haq et al simply examined agreement between the Framingham risk score . . . [Full text of this article]
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study
R J McManus, J Mant, C F M Meulendijks, R A Salter, H M Pattison, A K Roalfe, and F D R Hobbs
BMJ 2002 324: 459-464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ