HomeAboutusEditorial BoardCurrent issuearchivesSearch articlesInstructions for authorsSubscription detailsAdvertise

  Login  | Users online: 1087

   Ahead of print articles    Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size  


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 43  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 170-174
Ambiguity about selection of cardiovascular risk stratification tools: Evidence from a North Indian rural population


1 Department of Community Medicine, School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, RUHS College of Medical Sciences, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Manju Pilania
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, RUHS College of Medical Sciences, Jaipur - 302 033, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_255_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: Several nonlaboratory based cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scoring tools are available for resource-limited settings, but the performance of these tools remains to be established in Indian population. This study aimed to assess and compare the performance of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society for Hypertension (ISH) risk prediction chart and the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) calculator in an Indian setting. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out among 283 participants aged 30–74 years who attended screening camps in the rural area of Punjab from October to December 2015. Nonlaboratory-based WHO/ISH risk prediction chart for South-East Asia Region and FRS calculator was used to assess the 10-year risk of cardiovascular event. Chi-square test for trend and quadratic weighted kappa were used for analysis. Results: Of total participants, 67.1% were female. Mean age of the study participants was 52.1 (standard deviation ± 11.6) years. Using the WHO/ISH risk prediction chart, 11.3% and 4.9% of the participants were found to have high and very high risk, respectively, whereas, FRS calculator predicted high risk in 13.8% and very high risk in 12.0% for developing CVD in next 10 years. Agreement level between two risk prediction tools was good (67.8%). Conclusion: Although the good agreement was seen between WHO/ISH risk prediction chart and FRS calculator, the proportions of participants having a high and very high risk of CVD identified by these risk prediction tools are significantly different. In resource constraint setting like India, CVD risk prediction tools should be validated for local population by prospective cohort studies to ensure judicious use of resources.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article  Email this article
    

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed188    
    Printed9    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded62    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

  Sitemap | What's New | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
  2007 - Indian Journal of Community Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
  Online since 15th September, 2007