Comparison of methods of estimating coronary risk
BMJ 2000; 321 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7254.175 (Published 15 July 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;321:175
Authors did not use latest version of Sheffield table
- Erica J Wallis, research assistant (e.j.wallis@sheffield.ac.uk),
- Lawrence E Ramsay, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics,
- Joseph I N M Yikona,, research fellow,
- Peter R Jackson, reader in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
- Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF
- Medical Unit, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Dumfries DG1 4AP
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB42 2AY
EDITOR—Isles et al have compared the Sheffield, New Zealand, and joint British methods for estimating risk of coronary heart disease.1 But they used an earlier version of the Sheffield table and not the current table, published in the same issue of the journal.2
Earlier versions of the Sheffield table included left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography as a principle risk factor, but this proved too complex for many general practitioners (and, presumably, practice nurses). Could the authors confirm that the Sheffield table they studied included left ventricular hypertrophy and that the other methods compared with it did not, and would they comment on how this may have influenced the preferences expressed?
Their conclusions on the accuracy …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.