Download PDFPDF

Performance of the QRISK cardiovascular risk prediction algorithm in an independent UK sample of patients from general practice: a validation study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    QRISK - Limitations in Validation?
    • Marie Therese Cooney, Research Fellow in Cardiolgy
    • Other Contributors:
      • Alexandra Dudina, Prof Ian Graham, Professor of Preventive Cardiology

    Dear Editor,

    We have read with interest the recent article by Hippisley Cox et al on the validation of the new risk estimation function, QRISK. [1] QRISK demonstrated improved discrimination and calibration compared to Framingham in the independent British database, THIN. Previously, we wrote suggesting some methodological limitations in the derivation of the function. [2] Our main concerns were firstly, the use...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.