Community surveillance for cardiovascular disease: The Framingham Cardiovascular Disease Survey. Some methodological problems in the community study of cardiovascular disease

R. F. Gillum, M. Feinleib, J. R. Margolis, R. R. Fabsitz, R. C. Brasch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The CVDS experience has been reviewed with regard to several methodologic problems in the study of CVD. In light of this experience the following conclusions seem warranted: 1. Community surveillance studies of CVD should limit their inquiries to hard endpoints, i.e. those that are fatal or hospitalized. Community-physician reporting should be used only as an adjunctive surveillance tool because of its low additional yield when used in combination with hospital and death certificate surveillance. Physician reporting can be utilized along with computer checks of the records of insurance carriers and state hospital associations as internal quality control devices to detect lapses in the primary surveillance techniques. 2. The perusal of death certificates is an indispensable surveillance tool for community studies of CVD and is quite reliable for case finding. 3. Spouses or other relatives of patients can be relied upon to give fairly accurate information concerning chest pain prior to a CHD event, but are apt to disagree with patients' reports about other symptoms. 4. A longitudinal cohort study may be able to make diagnoses of MI and CI more frequently than a study without long-term follow-up information at its disposal; however, fatal events are diagnosed equally by the two types of study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-299
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Chronic Diseases
Volume29
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1976
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Death Certificates
Cardiovascular Diseases
Physicians
Carrier State
Insurance Carriers
State Hospitals
Chest Pain
Spouses
Quality Control
Longitudinal Studies
Cohort Studies
Equipment and Supplies
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Community surveillance for cardiovascular disease : The Framingham Cardiovascular Disease Survey. Some methodological problems in the community study of cardiovascular disease. / Gillum, R. F.; Feinleib, M.; Margolis, J. R.; Fabsitz, R. R.; Brasch, R. C.

In: Journal of Chronic Diseases, Vol. 29, No. 5, 1976, p. 289-299.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4898f6ebf0944f138b24676f2e683f2a,
title = "Community surveillance for cardiovascular disease: The Framingham Cardiovascular Disease Survey. Some methodological problems in the community study of cardiovascular disease",
abstract = "The CVDS experience has been reviewed with regard to several methodologic problems in the study of CVD. In light of this experience the following conclusions seem warranted: 1. Community surveillance studies of CVD should limit their inquiries to hard endpoints, i.e. those that are fatal or hospitalized. Community-physician reporting should be used only as an adjunctive surveillance tool because of its low additional yield when used in combination with hospital and death certificate surveillance. Physician reporting can be utilized along with computer checks of the records of insurance carriers and state hospital associations as internal quality control devices to detect lapses in the primary surveillance techniques. 2. The perusal of death certificates is an indispensable surveillance tool for community studies of CVD and is quite reliable for case finding. 3. Spouses or other relatives of patients can be relied upon to give fairly accurate information concerning chest pain prior to a CHD event, but are apt to disagree with patients' reports about other symptoms. 4. A longitudinal cohort study may be able to make diagnoses of MI and CI more frequently than a study without long-term follow-up information at its disposal; however, fatal events are diagnosed equally by the two types of study.",
author = "Gillum, {R. F.} and M. Feinleib and Margolis, {J. R.} and Fabsitz, {R. R.} and Brasch, {R. C.}",
year = "1976",
doi = "10.1016/0021-9681(76)90090-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "289--299",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community surveillance for cardiovascular disease

T2 - The Framingham Cardiovascular Disease Survey. Some methodological problems in the community study of cardiovascular disease

AU - Gillum, R. F.

AU - Feinleib, M.

AU - Margolis, J. R.

AU - Fabsitz, R. R.

AU - Brasch, R. C.

PY - 1976

Y1 - 1976

N2 - The CVDS experience has been reviewed with regard to several methodologic problems in the study of CVD. In light of this experience the following conclusions seem warranted: 1. Community surveillance studies of CVD should limit their inquiries to hard endpoints, i.e. those that are fatal or hospitalized. Community-physician reporting should be used only as an adjunctive surveillance tool because of its low additional yield when used in combination with hospital and death certificate surveillance. Physician reporting can be utilized along with computer checks of the records of insurance carriers and state hospital associations as internal quality control devices to detect lapses in the primary surveillance techniques. 2. The perusal of death certificates is an indispensable surveillance tool for community studies of CVD and is quite reliable for case finding. 3. Spouses or other relatives of patients can be relied upon to give fairly accurate information concerning chest pain prior to a CHD event, but are apt to disagree with patients' reports about other symptoms. 4. A longitudinal cohort study may be able to make diagnoses of MI and CI more frequently than a study without long-term follow-up information at its disposal; however, fatal events are diagnosed equally by the two types of study.

AB - The CVDS experience has been reviewed with regard to several methodologic problems in the study of CVD. In light of this experience the following conclusions seem warranted: 1. Community surveillance studies of CVD should limit their inquiries to hard endpoints, i.e. those that are fatal or hospitalized. Community-physician reporting should be used only as an adjunctive surveillance tool because of its low additional yield when used in combination with hospital and death certificate surveillance. Physician reporting can be utilized along with computer checks of the records of insurance carriers and state hospital associations as internal quality control devices to detect lapses in the primary surveillance techniques. 2. The perusal of death certificates is an indispensable surveillance tool for community studies of CVD and is quite reliable for case finding. 3. Spouses or other relatives of patients can be relied upon to give fairly accurate information concerning chest pain prior to a CHD event, but are apt to disagree with patients' reports about other symptoms. 4. A longitudinal cohort study may be able to make diagnoses of MI and CI more frequently than a study without long-term follow-up information at its disposal; however, fatal events are diagnosed equally by the two types of study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0017067168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0017067168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0021-9681(76)90090-4

DO - 10.1016/0021-9681(76)90090-4

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 289

EP - 299

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 5

ER -