File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of four cardiovascular risk prediction functions among Chinese patients with diabetes mellitus in the primary care setting

TitleComparison of four cardiovascular risk prediction functions among Chinese patients with diabetes mellitus in the primary care setting
Authors
Issue Date2014
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=2040-1116&site=1
Citation
Journal of Diabetes Investigation, 2014, v. 5 n. 5, p. 606-614 How to Cite?
AbstractAIMS/INTRODUCTION: To assess the feasibility, convergent validity and sensitivity of four cardiovascular risk prediction functions in Chinese diabetic patients in the primary care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 1,140 diabetic patients was carried out to compare four cardiovascular risk functions, which were respectively developed from the Framingham heart study, the USA-People's Republic of China Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular and Cardiopulmonary Epidemiology cohort (PRC), the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation program (JADE). Feasibility was assessed by the percentage of patients with complete data for risk prediction. Convergent validity was measured by Spearman's rank correlation, paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test and Bland-Altman plots. Effect size differences between clinical risk groups were used to assess the sensitivity. RESULTS: Risk prediction was feasible by the Framingham, UKPDS and PRC risk functions in more than 98% patients, whereas just 74% of patients had complete data for the JADE function. The annual total coronary heart disease (CHD) risk predicted by the JADE and the UKPDS functions showed excellent agreement with no significant difference, and a correlation of 0.8048. The Framingham and the PRC functions predicted significantly lower CHD risk than those by the UKPDS and the JADE functions. The UKPDS and the Framingham functions were more sensitive in differentiating clinical risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: The UKPDS risk engine showed good feasibility, convergent validity and sensitivity in predicting CHD risk in Chinese diabetic patients. The JADE function showed excellent agreement with the UKPDS risk engine, but it was less feasible in the primary care setting.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/205486
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.294
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.964
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJIAO, FF-
dc.contributor.authorLam, CLK-
dc.contributor.authorFung, SCC-
dc.contributor.authorMcGhee, S-
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-20T02:37:28Z-
dc.date.available2014-09-20T02:37:28Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Diabetes Investigation, 2014, v. 5 n. 5, p. 606-614-
dc.identifier.issn2040-1116-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/205486-
dc.description.abstractAIMS/INTRODUCTION: To assess the feasibility, convergent validity and sensitivity of four cardiovascular risk prediction functions in Chinese diabetic patients in the primary care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 1,140 diabetic patients was carried out to compare four cardiovascular risk functions, which were respectively developed from the Framingham heart study, the USA-People's Republic of China Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular and Cardiopulmonary Epidemiology cohort (PRC), the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation program (JADE). Feasibility was assessed by the percentage of patients with complete data for risk prediction. Convergent validity was measured by Spearman's rank correlation, paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test and Bland-Altman plots. Effect size differences between clinical risk groups were used to assess the sensitivity. RESULTS: Risk prediction was feasible by the Framingham, UKPDS and PRC risk functions in more than 98% patients, whereas just 74% of patients had complete data for the JADE function. The annual total coronary heart disease (CHD) risk predicted by the JADE and the UKPDS functions showed excellent agreement with no significant difference, and a correlation of 0.8048. The Framingham and the PRC functions predicted significantly lower CHD risk than those by the UKPDS and the JADE functions. The UKPDS and the Framingham functions were more sensitive in differentiating clinical risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: The UKPDS risk engine showed good feasibility, convergent validity and sensitivity in predicting CHD risk in Chinese diabetic patients. The JADE function showed excellent agreement with the UKPDS risk engine, but it was less feasible in the primary care setting.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=2040-1116&site=1-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Diabetes Investigation-
dc.rightsPreprint This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article]. Authors are not required to remove preprints posted prior to acceptance of the submitted version. Postprint This is the accepted version of the following article: [full citation], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article].-
dc.titleComparison of four cardiovascular risk prediction functions among Chinese patients with diabetes mellitus in the primary care setting-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLam, CLK: clklam@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFung, SCC: cfsc@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailMcGhee, S: smmcghee@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, CLK=rp00350-
dc.identifier.authorityFung, SCC=rp01330-
dc.identifier.authorityMcGhee, S=rp00393-
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jdi.12188-
dc.identifier.pmid25411630-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC4188120-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84908601924-
dc.identifier.hkuros240640-
dc.identifier.volume5-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.spage606-
dc.identifier.epage614-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000341989600020-
dc.publisher.placeAustralia-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats