Pajak A, Broda G, Abernathy J R, Sznajd J, Rywik S, Irving S H, Czarnecka H, Wagrowska H, Thomas R P, Celinski A
Department of Biochemical Diagnostics, Nicolaus Copernicus Medical Academy, Cracow, Poland.
Atherosclerosis. 1992 Jul;95(1):43-50. doi: 10.1016/0021-9150(92)90174-f.
Data from two epidemiological studies are used to measure the degree to which two well-known guidelines agree in measuring hyperlipidemia in population samples in the US and Poland. The epidemiological studies are the US Lipid Research Clinics Program Prevalence Study and the Pol-MONICA project in Poland and the guidelines are those adopted by the US National Cholesterol Program (USNCEP) and by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). EAS guidelines were analyzed in two ways: Method 1 used triglycerides and total cholesterol only in classifying persons as hyperlipidemics or non-hyperlipidemics; Method 2 used triglycerides, total cholesterol and nine additional risk factors in the classification process. USNCEP guidelines used total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol and the same additional nine risk factors used in EAS Method 2 in classifying hyperlipidemics. Classification differences between the two sets of guidelines were high when EAS Method 1 guidelines were compared with USNCEP guidelines. However, EAS Method 2 which included risk factors, compared favorably with USNCEP guidelines in all three populations under study.
两项流行病学研究的数据被用于衡量在美国和波兰的人群样本中，两项著名指南在检测高脂血症方面的一致程度。这两项流行病学研究分别是美国脂质研究临床项目患病率研究和波兰的Pol-MONICA项目，而指南则是美国国家胆固醇项目（USNCEP）和欧洲动脉粥样硬化学会（EAS）所采用的指南。EAS指南从两个方面进行了分析：方法1仅使用甘油三酯和总胆固醇来将人群分类为高脂血症患者或非高脂血症患者；方法2在分类过程中使用了甘油三酯、总胆固醇以及另外九个风险因素。USNCEP指南在对高脂血症进行分类时，使用了总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇以及EAS方法2中所使用的相同的另外九个风险因素。当将EAS方法1指南与USNCEP指南进行比较时，两组指南之间的分类差异很大。然而，包含风险因素的EAS方法2在所有三项研究人群中与USNCEP指南相比表现良好。
