Clinicians who see patients for primary care or for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are fortunate to have multivariable models1,2 that can predict, with reasonable reliability, the absolute risk for future CVD events in large segments of the population.3,4 Even in 2006, the absolute risk for future development of disease can be predicted for very few diseases, much less with the precision afforded by current CVD risk prediction models. These “risk scores” are a major advance over clinical risk prediction using relative risk estimates, and CVD prevention is one of the few areas in clinical practice to incorporate the use of absolute risk prediction into clinical practice guidelines.2 However, it has been widely recognized that CVD risk prediction models are imperfect. Appropriately, many investigators are attempting to improve CVD risk prediction to refine our ability to estimate absolute risk and to find those individuals who appear to be at low risk but are actually at high risk and merit preventive therapies. There is intense ongoing debate about which factors, if any, should be considered for addition to existing CVD risk prediction algorithms.
Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more
Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features
Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)
Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 21
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
The Rational Clinical Examination
About 16% of general medical patients report that they have palpitations.1 Within...
All results at
and access these and other features:
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.