Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 27 April 2016
- Published on: 27 April 2016
- Published on: 27 April 2016
- Published on: 27 April 2016Re: Higher IHD and conventional risk factors in Scotland- incidence data paints a different pictureShow More
Dear Editor
Richard Morris and Peter Whincup compare their results based on the British Regional Heart Study (BRHS) to our results based on the Health Surveys for England and Scotland. The degree of similarity is encouraging (we particularly agree with them about the role of genetics, a suggestion we included only for the sake of completeness). We can think of two possible reasons for the different conclusions with...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 27 April 2016Higher IHD and conventional risk factors in Scotland- incidence data paints a different pictureShow More
Dear Editor,
Mitchell et al. have compared the prevalence of doctor diagnosed ischaemic heart disease between England and Scotland in 1998.[1] They found a higher prevalence of IHD in Scotland, and concluded that the distributions of established risk factors for coronary disease did not explain this difference.
We have previously addressed the question of geographical variations in IHD across Great Br...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 27 April 2016Scottishness and IHDShow More
Dear Editor
I agree with Dr Mitchell that other factors need to be considered over and above the usual. I do not think genes are the answer because it has been shown that place of residence is more important than place of birth [1] and that for migrants the risk of IHD tends to change to that of the new country.[2]
One factor which tends to be overlooked is the effect of cold. However cold is not...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.