QRISK validation and evaluation

QRISK may be less useful

BMJ 2009; 339 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3485 (Published 1 September 2009)
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3485

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Su May Liew, research student1,
  2. Paul Glasziou, professor1
  1. 1Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford OX3 7LF
  1. su.liew{at}dphpc.ox.ac.uk

    Collins and Altman inappropriately criticise the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for not choosing QRISK to predict cardiovascular risk.1 In doing so, they do not distinguish between assessing individual cardiovascular risk (as used by clinicians) and predicting risk of cardiovascular events in an actively managed population (as used in public health planning). As …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    THIS WEEK'S POLL