Validation of Cardiovascular Risk Scores in the Southern Cone of Latin America: Which Predicts Better?

Gulayin, Pablo; Danaei, Goodarz; Gutiérrez, Laura; Poggio, Rosana; Ponzo, Jaqueline; Lanas, Fernando; Rubinstein, Adolfo; Irazola, Vilma

doi:10.7775/rac.v86.i1.12908

Cited by 1 publication

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five of the 8 reports were published in Latin-American journals 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, with 3 of them written in Spanish 19, 22, 23. The oldest report was published in 2001 [24] and the newest ones in 2018 20, 25. Six reports were conducted in 1 country only 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, and there were 2 multicountry efforts including Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay [20], as well as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1) [25]. The country that has been mostly included in this review was Chile (3 of 8) 19, 20, 25; Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay were studied in 2 reports 20, 22, 23, 25, 26; Puerto Rico [24] and Mexico [21] were included in 1 report (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies collected baseline information in the 2000s 19, 20, 25, 26, 3 in the 1990s 21, 22, 23, and 1 between 1965 and 1968 [24]. One-half of the selected studies included population-based samples 20, 21, 24, 25, whereas the other one-half included people that were somehow affiliated with health care facilities 19, 22, 23, 26. For example, Muñoz et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[19] enrolled individuals who voluntarily attended a cardiology prevention program in Chile. Women accounted for more than one-half of the study population in 5 reports 20, 21, 22, 23, 25; in 1 report the women-to-men ratio was 1 [26]; and in 2 reports, men accounted for a larger share of the study population 19, 24. Although it was not possible to extract baseline age information from 1 study [20], the others had either a mean of, or a larger proportion of, people ≥50 years old 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; in the report by Jimenez-Corona et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cardiovascular Disease Prognostic Models in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review

Carrillo‐Larco

Altez-Fernandez

Pacheco‐Barrios

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cardiovascular prognostic models guide treatment allocation and support clinical decisions. Whether there are valid models for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) populations is unknown. Objective This study sought to identify and critically appraise cardiovascular prognostic models developed, tested, or recalibrated in LAC populations. Methods The systematic review followed the CHARMS (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) framework (PROSPERO [International Prospective Register of Systemic Reviews]: CRD42018096553). Reports were included if they followed a prospective design and presented a multivariable prognostic model; reports were excluded if they studied symptomatic individuals or patients. The following search engines were used: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, and LILACS. Risk of bias assessment was conducted with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). No quantitative summary was conducted due to large heterogeneity. Results From 2,506 search results, 8 studies (N = 130,482 participants) were included for qualitative synthesis. We could not identify any cardiovascular prognostic model developed for LAC populations; reviewed reports evaluated available models or conducted a recalibration analysis. Only 1 study included a Caribbean population (Puerto Rico); 3 studies were retrieved from Chile; 2 from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay; and 1 from Mexico. Four studies included population-based samples, and the other 4 included people affiliated to a health facility (e.g., prevention clinics). Most studied participants were older than 50 years, and there were more women in 5 reports. The Framingham model was assessed 6 times, and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled equation was assessed twice. Across the prognostic models assessed, calibration varied widely from one population to another, showing great overestimation particularly in some subgroups (e.g., highest risk). Discrimination (e.g., C-statistic) was acceptable for most models; for Framingham it ranged from 0.66 to 0.76. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled equation showed the best discrimination (0.78). That there were few outcome events was the most important methodological limitation of the identified studies. Conclusions No cardiovascular prognostic models have been developed in LAC, hampering key evidence to inform public health and clinical practice. Validation studies need to improve methodological issues.

show abstract