Skip Navigation



The European Journal of Public Health Advance Access published online on May 29, 2009
The European Journal of Public Health, doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckp070
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/1/107    most recent
ckp070v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ketola, E.
Right arrow Articles by Vartiainen, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ketola, E.
Right arrow Articles by Vartiainen, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

Evaluating risk for cardiovascular diseases—vain or value? How do different cardiovascular risk scores act in real life

Eeva Ketola1, Tiina Laatikainen2 and Erkki Vartiainen2

1 Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Kalevankatu 3 B, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
2 Department of Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention, National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, 00300 Helsinki, Finland

Correspondence: Eeva Ketola, Current Care Guidelines, Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Kalevankatu 3 B, 00100 Helsinki, Finland, tel: +358-50-5607900, fax: +358-9-677739, e-mail: eeva.ketola{at}duodecim.fi

Received May 5, 2008 , accepted April 30, 2009

Background: Screening tools to identify persons with high cardiovascular risk exist, but less is known about their validity in different population groups. The aim of this article is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of three different cardiovascular disease risk scores and their ability to detect high-risk individuals in daily practice. Methods: The sensitivity and specificity of risk charts based on Framingham Risk Function, SCORE and cardiovascular disease (CVD) Risk Score were analysed using a large population risk factor survey database in Finland. For different cardiovascular disease end-points in 10-year follow-up true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative cases were identified using different risk charts. Subjects over 40 years (n = 25 059) of the FINRISK Study were used in analyses. Results: Risk scores differed depending on gender, age and cardiovascular outcome. Among men the sensitivity of CVD Risk Score and Framingham Risk Function at risk of ≥10% for each end point was higher than of SCORE or Framingham Risk Function at risk of 20%. The specificity of Framingham Risk Function at risk of 20% was higher than the specificity of other risk charts. Among women in all endpoints the sensitivity was highest in CVD Risk Score and lowest in Framingham Risk Function at risk of ≥20%. Specificity for all different endpoints was highest in SCORE and Framingham Risk Function at risk of 20%. Conclusions: Sensitivity and specificity varied markedly in between three cardiovascular risk evaluation tools. Practitioners should be aware of their limitations especially when estimating risk among women and younger patients.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease, risk score, mortality, sensitivity, specificity


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.