TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity of a method for the self-screening of cardiovascular risk
AU - Barroso, María
AU - Pérez-Fernández, Silvia
AU - Vila, M. Mar
AU - Zomeño, M. Dolors
AU - Martí-Lluch, Ruth
AU - Cordon, Ferran
AU - Ramos, Rafel
AU - Elosua, Roberto
AU - Degano, Irene R.
AU - Fitó, Montse
AU - Cabezas, Carmen
AU - Salvador, Gemma
AU - Castell, Conxa
AU - Grau, María
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors wish to thank Marta Cabañero, Leny Franco, Neus Guday, Montse Peris, Martina Sidera, and Susanna Tello for their contribution to the data collection and management of this project and appreciate the revision of the English text by Elaine Lilly, Ph D. This study was partially financed with unconditional support from Roche Diagnostics and by Spain’s Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the Carlos III Health Institute FEDER (CM12/03287, CPII17/00012, and FIS14/00449).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Barroso et al.
PY - 2018/5/10
Y1 - 2018/5/10
N2 - Background: The validity of a cardiovascular risk self-screening method was assessed. The results obtained for self-measurement of blood pressure, a point-of-care system’s assessment of lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin, and a self-administered questionnaire (sex, age, diabetes, tobacco consumption) were compared with the standard screening (gold standard) conducted by a health professional. Methods: Crossover clinical trial on a population-based sample from Girona (north-eastern Spain), aged 35–74, with no cardiovascular disease at recruitment. Participants were randomized to one of the two risk assessment sequences (standard screening followed by self-screening or vice versa). Cardiovascular risk was estimated with the Framingham-REGICOR function. Concordance between methods was estimated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were estimated, considering 5% cardiovascular risk as the cutoff point. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT02373319. Clinical Research Ethic Committee of the Parc de Salut Mar Registration #2014/5815/I. Results: The median cardiovascular risk in men was 2.56 (interquartile range: 1.42–4.35) estimated by standard methods and 2.25 (1.28–4.07) by self-screening with ICC=0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.93). In women, the cardiovascular risk was 1.14 (0.61–2.10) by standard methods and 1.10 (0.56–2.00) by self-screening, with ICC=0.89 (0.87–0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the self-screening method were 0.74 (0.63–0.82), 0.97 (0.95–0.99), 0.86 (0.77–0.93), and 0.94 (0.91–0.96), respectively, in men. In women, these values were 0.50 (0.30–0.70), 0.99 (0.98–1), 0.81 (0.54–0.96), and 0.97 (0.95–0.99), respectively. Conclusion: The self-screening method for assessing cardiovascular risk provided similar results to the standard method. Self-screening had high clinical performance to rule out intermediate or high cardiovascular risk.
AB - Background: The validity of a cardiovascular risk self-screening method was assessed. The results obtained for self-measurement of blood pressure, a point-of-care system’s assessment of lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin, and a self-administered questionnaire (sex, age, diabetes, tobacco consumption) were compared with the standard screening (gold standard) conducted by a health professional. Methods: Crossover clinical trial on a population-based sample from Girona (north-eastern Spain), aged 35–74, with no cardiovascular disease at recruitment. Participants were randomized to one of the two risk assessment sequences (standard screening followed by self-screening or vice versa). Cardiovascular risk was estimated with the Framingham-REGICOR function. Concordance between methods was estimated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were estimated, considering 5% cardiovascular risk as the cutoff point. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT02373319. Clinical Research Ethic Committee of the Parc de Salut Mar Registration #2014/5815/I. Results: The median cardiovascular risk in men was 2.56 (interquartile range: 1.42–4.35) estimated by standard methods and 2.25 (1.28–4.07) by self-screening with ICC=0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.93). In women, the cardiovascular risk was 1.14 (0.61–2.10) by standard methods and 1.10 (0.56–2.00) by self-screening, with ICC=0.89 (0.87–0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the self-screening method were 0.74 (0.63–0.82), 0.97 (0.95–0.99), 0.86 (0.77–0.93), and 0.94 (0.91–0.96), respectively, in men. In women, these values were 0.50 (0.30–0.70), 0.99 (0.98–1), 0.81 (0.54–0.96), and 0.97 (0.95–0.99), respectively. Conclusion: The self-screening method for assessing cardiovascular risk provided similar results to the standard method. Self-screening had high clinical performance to rule out intermediate or high cardiovascular risk.
KW - Cardiovascular diseases
KW - Empowerment
KW - Epidemiology
KW - Preventive medicine
KW - Public health
KW - Risk assessment
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85047755850
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/782
U2 - 10.2147/CLEP.S158358
DO - 10.2147/CLEP.S158358
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85047755850
SN - 1179-1349
VL - 10
SP - 549
EP - 560
JO - Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Clinical Epidemiology
ER -
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being