This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

PETER RUDD, MD; STEPHEN P. FORTMANN, MD
Stanford, Calif

Arch Intern Med. 1990;150(5):1121-1124.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor. — Lefebvre and coworkers¹ and the accompanying editorial by Havas² raise several critical and appropriate parallels between screening efforts for hypertension and those for hypercholesterolemia. Al(Continued on p 1124.) (Continued from p 1121.) though their summary of labeling is thoughtful and apt, a few qualifications may be useful and important.

The screening effort itself encompasses multiple complexities. The absolute number of individuals undergoing a screening may be less crucial than the number and proportion who were previously unaware of their condition. The hypertension literature3 suggests that many screenees had previously undergone similar screening and wished merely to verify the prior result.

Close linkage to follow-up and treatment for sustained elevation represents another hurdle. To minimize unavailability for follow-up, several investigators demonstrated the feasibility of work-site programs, arguing the several advantages of a nearly "captive" audience. Haynes et al⁴ observed dramatic elevations in illness absenteeism . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?