4.0 Article

The MONICA Augsburg surveys -: Basis for prospective cohort studies

Journal

GESUNDHEITSWESEN
Volume 67, Issue -, Pages S13-S18

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-858234

Keywords

MONICA/KORA-project Augsburg; cardiovascular risk factors; survey; cohort study; incident acute myocardial infarction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As part of the WHO MONICA project three population-representative surveys were conducted in the study region of Augsburg since 1984/85 to describe time trends of classical cardiovascular risk factors. These surveys provide relevant baseline-information for prospective health outcome studies. Three independent study populations were recruited in 1984/85 (S1: age 25-64 years), 1989/90 (S2: age 25-74 years), and 1994/95 (S3: age 25-74 years) by a two-stage cluster sampling, with random sampling for the city of Augsburg, and a random selection of 16 communities by community size in the two adjacent counties. In the three surveys, 13,427 persons have had 13,818 study participations, since some subjects were by chance sampled for more than one survey. From 1984 to 1995, no trends in hypertension could be observed, but an increase of 15 % (men) resp. 30 % (women) in dyslipidaemia (total/HDL cholesterol ratio >= five). Cigarette smoking decreased in 55 to 64 year old men und increased in 35 to 64-year old women. The predictive impact for incident Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) per 100,000 person years is highest for cigarette smoking (men 880, women 360), followed by dyslipidemia (men 739, women 318) and systolic blood pressure >= 160 mm Hg (men 658, women 276). By 31 st December 2002 1,551 persons (1,031 men, 520 women) had died. The surveys will be used for further gender-specific cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses with special focus on classical, new laboratory and genetic risk factors as determinants of mortality, incident AMI and incident type 2 diabetes, to improve preventive strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available