There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores  affect CVD events .
Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm .
BACKGROUND The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention .
Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools , or CVD risk scores , have attracted considerable attention , their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes , risk factor levels , preventive medication prescribing , and health behaviours .
Randomized trial evaluating the framing of cardiovascular risk and its impact on blood pressure control [ISRCTN87597585]
Background The format or frame in which the results of r and omized trials are presented has been shown to influence health professional 's self-reported practice . We sought to investigate the effect of framing cardiovascular risk as two different formats in a r and omized trial . Methods We recruited 457 patients aged between 60 and 79 years with high blood pressure from 20 family practice s in Avon , UK . Patients were r and omized to cardiovascular risk presented either as 1 ) an absolute risk level ( AR ) or as 2 ) the number needed to treat to prevent an adverse event ( NNT ) . The main outcome measures were : 1 ) percentage of patients in each group with a five-year cardiovascular risk ≥ 10 % , 2 ) systolic and diastolic blood pressure , 3 ) intensity of prescribing of cardiovascular medication . Results Presenting cardiovascular risk as either an AR or NNT had no impact reducing cardiovascular risk at 12 month follow up , adjusted odds ratio 1.53 ( 95%CI 0.76 to 3.08 ) . There was no difference between the two groups in systolic ( adjusted difference 0.97 mmHg , 95%CI -2.34 mmHg to 4.29 mmHg ) or diastolic ( adjusted difference 0.70 mmHg , 95%CI -1.05 mmHg to 2.45 mmHg ) blood pressure . Intensity of prescribing of blood pressure lowering drugs was not significantly different between the two groups at six months follow up . Conclusions Presenting cardiovascular risk in clinical practice guidelines as either an AR or NNT had a similar influence on patient outcome and prescribing intensity . There is no difference in patient outcomes when these alternative formats of risk are used in clinical practice guidelines
There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores  affect CVD events .
Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm .
BACKGROUND The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention .
Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools , or CVD risk scores , have attracted considerable attention , their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes , risk factor levels , preventive medication prescribing , and health behaviours .