We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Cholesterol results
Comments
-
SimonHEARTUK wrote: »A total cholesterol reading is pretty meaningless and should not be taken in isolation. It is important to know the overall risk of heart disease- cholesterol is important but not the only factor. Knowing the HDL and LDL ratio is also important as too is knowing heart disease in the family, age and weight. Many general practices haven't caught up with cheaper technologies available and still send blood samples to hospital rather than the cheaper methods that provide instant results in the practice itself. So it could be that they do the tests the old fashioned way, which sounds like the case since you had to wait.
Well, near patient testing isn't always cheaper. Particularly when the GP will have to pay for the machine and disposables as well as ensuring it's accurate and properly calibrated regularly. I agree it is all about personalised risk scoring and modification of individual factors, particularly smoking!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards