rss
Heart 2001;85:37-43 doi:10.1136/heart.85.1.37
  • Cardiovascular medicine

Comparative accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction methods in primary care patients

  1. A F Jonesa,
  2. J Walkera,
  3. C Jewkesa,
  4. F L Gamea,
  5. W A Bartletta,
  6. T Marshallb,
  7. G R Baylyc
  1. aDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK, bDepartment of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK, cDepartment of Chemical Pathology, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK
  1. Dr JonesJonesAla{at}heartsol.wmids.nhs.uk
  • Accepted 12 September 2000

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare the relative accuracy of cardiovascular disease risk prediction methods based on equations derived from the Framingham heart study.

DESIGN Risk factor data were collected prospectively from subjects being evaluated by their primary care physicians for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Projected cardiovascular risks were calculated for each patient with the Framingham equations, and also estimated from the risk tables and charts based on the same equations.

SETTING 12 primary care practices (46 doctors) in Birmingham.

PATIENTS 691 subjects aged 30–70 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Framingham based risk tables and charts for treatment thresholds based on projected cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease risk.

RESULTS 59 subjects (8.5%) had projected 10 year coronary heart disease risks ≥ 30%, and 291 (42.1%) had risks ≥ 15%. At equivalent projected risk levels (10 year coronary heart disease ≥ 30% and five year cardiovascular disease ≥ 20%), the original Sheffield tables and those from New Zealand have the same sensitivities (40.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 26.6% to 57.8% v 41.2%, 95% CI 28.7% to 57.3%) and specificities (98.6%, 95% CI 97.2% to 99.3%v 99.7%, 95% CI 98.8% to 100%). Modifications to the Sheffield tables improve sensitivity (91.4%, 95% CI 81.3% to 96.9%) but reduce specificity (95.8%, 95% CI 93.9% to 97.3%). The revised joint British recommendations' charts have high specificity (98.7%, 95% CI 97.5% to 99.5%) and good sensitivity (84.7%, 95% CI 71.0% to 93.0%).

CONCLUSIONS The revised joint British recommendations charts appear to have the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for use in primary care patients.

Footnotes

    Responses to this article

    • Sensitivity of the risk assessment tool should be the most important parameter - Authors' response
      • A F Jones
      Heart published online March 6, 2001
    • The sensitivity of the risk assessment tool should be the most important parameter
      • Erica J Wallis
      Heart published online March 6, 2001

    This Article

    1. Abstract
    2. Full text
    3. PDF

    Register for free content

    The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.