Cardiovascular risk assessment tools: A scoping review |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Polyclinic Centre of Canarias, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Calle Alfonso Trujillo, s/n (Edificio Temait III), 38300, La Orotava, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain;2. Multiprofessional Teaching Unit of Family and Community Care, Canary Islands Health Service, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Hospital Universitario Ntra. Sra. de Candelaria, Ctra. del Rosario, 145, 38010 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain;3. University of Huelva, Department of Nursing, Facultad de Enfermería, Campus del Carmen, Avda. Tres de Marzo s/n, 21071, Huelva, Spain;4. Espíritu Santo University, Guayaquil, Ecuador;5. Red Cross Nursing University Center, University of Sevilla, Avda Cruz Roja s/n. Dpdo, 41009, Sevilla, Spain;6. University School of Nursing Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, University of La Laguna, Hospital Universitario Ntra. Sra. De Candelaria, Ctra. del Rosario, 145, 38010, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain;1. Discipline of Acute Care Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia;2. Department of Critical Care Services, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia;3. NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Translating Nutritional Science to Good Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia;4. Intensive Care Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women''s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA;2. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Boston, MA, USA;3. Centre for Global Health Research, St. Michael''s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;4. Centre for Chronic Disease Control, Gurgaon, India;6. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA;5. CRONICAS Center of Excellence for Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru;7. Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina;11. Chronic Disease Initiative for Africa, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa;12. Division of Diabetic Medicine and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa;8. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru;10. St. John''s Medical College and Research Institute, St. John''s National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore, India;9. The George Institute for Global Health at Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China;1. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Graduate Programs in Clinical Nutrition, School of Health Professions, Rutgers University, Stratford & Newark, New Jersey.;2. Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, School of Health Related Professions, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey.;3. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey.;4. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.;1. Renal Unit, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK;2. School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK;1. Departamento de Cardiología, Clínica Las Condes. Santiago, Chile;2. Interna de Medicina, 5̊ año, Universidad del Desarrollo. Santiago, Chile;1. Department of Human Services and Consumer Sciences, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas;2. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Graduate Programs in Clinical Nutrition, Rutgers University, School of Health Professions, Newark, New Jersey |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to describe cardiovascular risk (CVR) assessment methods and to identify evidence-based practice recommendations when dealing with population at risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.Review methods and data sourcesA literature review following the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology was conducted. By using appropriate key terms, literature searches were conducted in PubMed, SciELO, Cochrane Library, Dialnet, ENFISPO, Medigraphic, ScienceDirect, Cuiden, and Lilacs databases. A complementary search on websites related to the area of interest was conducted. Articles published in English or Spanish in peer-review journals between 2010 and 2017. Critical appraisal for methodological quality was conducted. Data was extracted using ad-hoc tables and qualitatively synthesized.ResultsAfter eliminating duplicates, 55 325 records remained, and 1432 records were selected for screening. Out of these, 88 full-text articles were selected for eligibility criteria, and finally, 67 studies were selected for this review, and 25 studies were selected for evidence synthesis. In total, 23 CVR assessment tools have been identified, pioneered by the Framingham study. Qualitative findings were grouped into four thematic areas: assessment tools and scores, CVR indicators, comparative models, and evidence-based recommendations.ConclusionsIt is necessary to adapt the instruments to the epidemiological reality of the population. The most appropriate way to estimate CVR is to choose the assessment tool that best suits individual conditions, accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of the patient. More research is required to determine a single, adequate, and reliable tool. |
| |
| Keywords: | Scoping review Risk assessment Cardiovascular risk Cardiovascular risk assessment tools Cardiovascular diseases Prevention of cardiovascular disease |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
