Why the study?
Does a self-administered chest pain questionnaire predict five-year coronary mortality risk as effectively as an interviewer-administered questionnaire in middle-aged men?
Does a self-administered chest pain questionnaire predict five-year coronary mortality risk as effectively as an interviewer-administered questionnaire in middle-aged men?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports combined questionnaire-ECG stratification of coronary mortality in men; leaves open equivalence to interviewer administration.
A total of 18 403 men aged between 40 and 64 years took part in a screening examination which included a self-administered version of the London School of Hygiene questionnaire on chest pain and intermittent claudication. The yield of positives for "angina" and "history of possible infarction" was about twice as high as with interviewers, but the positive groups obtained by the two techniques differed little in their association with electrocardiographic findings or in their ability to predict five-year coronary mortality risk. This risk ranged from 0-9% in men negative to questionnaire and electrocardiograms (ECG), to 4-3% for those with positive ECG but no symptoms, 4-5% for those with angina and negative ECG, up to 16% for those with angina and positive ECG. The self-administered version of this questionnaire provides a simple and convenient means of identifying individuals with a high risk of major coronary heart disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rose et al. (1977) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: