You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Featured correspondence
The Authors' reply
  1. Beatriz de la Iglesia1,
  2. John F Potter2,
  3. Neil R Poulter3,
  4. Margaret M Robins1,
  5. Jane Skinner2
  1. 1School of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
  2. 2School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
  3. 3ICCH, Imperial College, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Beatriz de la Iglesia, University of East Anglia, UEA Campus, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK; bli{at}cmp.uea.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2010.221093

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The Authors' reply Hippisley-Cox et al's response1 to our paper published in this issue of Heart2 highlights differences between QRISK3 and QRISK24 asserting that QRISK2 improved on QRISK whereas an independent validation concluded that ‘differences in performance were marginal’.5 The wider CIs obtained in the independent validation of QRISK2 († in table 1) by …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Linked article 221085

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval This study was conducted based on Ethical Approval Ref. 08/H0305/2 from the Cambridgeshire 4 Research Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles