Although several methods have been developed to allow for the analysis of data in the presence of missing values, no clear guide exists to help family researchers in choosing among the many options and procedures available. We delineate these options and examine the sensitivity of the findings in a regression model estimated in three random samples from the National Survey of Families and Households ( n = 250 -2,000). These results, combined with findings from simulation studies, are used to guide answers to a set of 10 common questions asked by researchers when selecting a missing data approach. Modern missing data techniques were found to perform better than traditional ones, but differences between the types of modern approaches had minor effects on the estimates and substantive conclusions. Our findings suggest that the researcher has considerable flexibility in selecting among modern options for handling missing data.Within the last decade, the practice of analyzing data in the presence of missing values has

Background Accurate risk assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is essential to effectively balance the risks and benefits of therapy for primary prevention. Objective To compare the calibration and discrimination of the new American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) ASCVD risk score with alternative risk scores and to explore preventive therapy as a cause of the reported risk overestimation using the AHA-ACC-ASCVD score. Design Prospective epidemiologic study of ASCVD. Setting MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), a community-based, sex-balanced, multiethnic cohort. Patients 4227 MESA participants aged 50 to 74 years and without diabetes at baseline. Measurements Observed and expected events for the AHA-ACC-ASCVD score were compared with 4 commonly used risk scores—and their respective end points—in MESA after a 10.2-year follow-up. Results The new AHA-ACC-ASCVD and 3 older Framingham-based risk scores overestimated cardiovascular events by 37% to 154% in men and 8% to 67% in women. Overestimation was noted throughout the continuum of risk. In contrast, the Reynolds Risk Score overestimated risk by 9% in men but underestimated risk by 21% in women. Aspirin, lipid-lowering or antihypertensive therapy, and interim revascularization did not explain the overestimation. Limitation Comparability of MESA with target populations for primary prevention and possibility of missed events in MESA. Conclusion Of the 5 risk scores, 4, including the new AHA-ACC-ASCVD score, showed overestimation of risk (25% to 115%) in a modern, multiethnic cohort without baseline clinical ASCVD. If validated, overestimation of ASCVD risk may have substantial implications for individual patients and the health care system. Primary Funding Source National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Coronary artery calcium is associated strongly and in a graded fashion with 10-year risk of incident ASCVD as it is for CHD, independent of standard risk factors, and similarly by age, gender, and ethnicity. While 10-year event rates in those with CAC = 0 were almost exclusively below 5%, those with CAC ≥ 100 were consistently above 7.5%, making these potentially valuable cutpoints for the consideration of preventive therapies. Coronary artery calcium strongly predicts risk with the same magnitude of effect in all races, age groups, and both sexes, which makes it among the most useful markers for predicting ASCVD risk.