FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2111734237> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2111734237 abstract "Serum total cholesterol measurements have been shown to differentiate between patients with angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease and controls less well than compound indices of cardiovascular risk. Details of employees (n = 229) nominated by an occupational health service in a non-manufacturing firm were used as a starting point for calculations to compare the costs and benefits of using compound indices of cardiovascular risk with those of total cholesterol measurements alone.Healthy employees were defined as having a low or a high risk of cardiovascular disease according to either total cholesterol level or two compound indices of blood lipid components. The compound indices were the ratio of total to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the TC: HDLC ratio) and an 'atherogenic index' defined as ([total cholesterol-HDL cholesterol] x [apolipoprotein B])/([HDL cholesterol] x [apolipoprotein A]). If compound indices discriminate better between people at low and high risk, both the number of people given unnecessary advice on lifestyle changes or urged to take cholesterol-reducing medication and the number of people not treated because of their 'normal' cholesterol levels would be reduced. In our calculations, we assumed as 'gains' that (1) the disclosure that a total cholesterol test result is false-positive is equal to treatment costs, consultation fee and consumption foregone (i.e. resources already used on medication, services etc.) (8909 Nkr [US $1 = 7 Nkr]), and (2) the disclosure that a test result is false-negative is equal to consultation fee plus loss of 2 h wages (288 Nkr).The screening of 100,000 men and 100,000 women would incur a cost of 99 and 710 Nkr, respectively, per person assumed to benefit from extended screening using two different compound indices. Net gain would be 438 and 192 million Nkr, respectively, for the two compound indices. However, the lack of prospective data on compound indices suggests the need for cautious interpretation.Although prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings, the changes in number of false-positive and false-negative values achievable using different indices suggests a need for greater caution when using single lipid measurements as predictors of risk. The calculations of this non-prospective study indicated an increased benefit-cost ratio in assessing cardiovascular risk by using compound indices of cardiovascular risk compared with total cholesterol measurements alone." @default.
• W2111734237 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2111734237 creator A5082365296 @default.
• W2111734237 date "1995-10-01" @default.
• W2111734237 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2111734237 title "Screening for Cardiovascular Risk: Cost-Benefit Considerations in a Comparison of Total Cholesterol Measurements and Two Compound Blood Lipid Indices" @default.
• W2111734237 cites W1973898571 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2012305341 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2012668956 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2018843034 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2054903418 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2073486233 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2079819967 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2080585365 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2082947942 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2083127693 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2084645892 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2092446135 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2111051472 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2114364424 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2118962859 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2119026555 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2131001997 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2143176377 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2152959724 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2306744213 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2312807852 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2324962400 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W2337032743 @default.
• W2111734237 cites W563835904 @default.
• W2111734237 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/174182679500200509" @default.
• W2111734237 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8749272" @default.
• W2111734237 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W2111734237 type Work @default.
• W2111734237 sameAs 2111734237 @default.
• W2111734237 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2111734237 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2111734237 hasAuthorship W2111734237A5082365296 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConcept C2778163477 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConcept C2778213512 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConcept C3019550498 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConcept C62746215 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConceptScore W2111734237C126322002 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConceptScore W2111734237C2778163477 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConceptScore W2111734237C2778213512 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConceptScore W2111734237C3019550498 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConceptScore W2111734237C62746215 @default.
• W2111734237 hasConceptScore W2111734237C71924100 @default.
• W2111734237 hasLocation W21117342371 @default.
• W2111734237 hasLocation W21117342372 @default.
• W2111734237 hasOpenAccess W2111734237 @default.
• W2111734237 hasPrimaryLocation W21117342371 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W1975912945 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W1994838191 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2019710688 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2026528588 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2028877591 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2033921535 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2061259561 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2070283543 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2093284631 @default.
• W2111734237 hasRelatedWork W2157219243 @default.
• W2111734237 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2111734237 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2111734237 magId "2111734237" @default.
• W2111734237 workType "article" @default.