...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical and experimental hypertension: CEH >Measures of global risk: old versus new methods.
【24h】

Measures of global risk: old versus new methods.

机译:衡量全球风险的方法:旧方法与新方法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

It is clear that atherosclerotic arterial disease has a multifactorial aetiology. Furthermore relatively modest elevations of two or more risk factors frequently coexist in individuals to produce a significant impact on the likelihood of a cardiovascular event. Nevertheless clinical practice has tended to be unifactorial, with physicians concentrating on single risk factors in isolation. Various scores using data on several risk factors have therefore been developed to help physicians assess which of their patients are most at risk and therefore most merit intervention. This global risk assessment is increasingly recognised in management guidelines as a reasonable way of guiding treatment. Indeed intervention strategies that do not target those at highest cardiovascular risk--(and currently available risk scores do this more efficiently than physicians' judgement)--are less likely to be cost effective. It must be acknowledged however that all risk scores have limitations and hence whichever method is used should be used to guide rather than rule practice.
机译:显然,动脉粥样硬化性动脉病具有多种病因。此外,两种或多种危险因素相对适度的升高经常在个体中共存,从而对心血管事件的可能性产生重大影响。然而,临床实践往往是单方面的,医生只专注于单个危险因素。因此,已经开发出使用几种危险因素数据的各种评分,以帮助医生评估他们的哪些患者风险最高,因此最值得干预。这种全球风险评估在管理指南中越来越被视为指导治疗的合理方法。实际上,不针对那些具有最高心血管风险的干预策略(和目前可获得的风险评分比医生的判断更有效)是不太可能具有成本效益的。但是必须承认,所有风险评分都有局限性,因此,无论使用哪种方法,都应使用指南来指导而不是规则实践。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号