Calculation error in estimating low HDL in women.

Sir,

I have recently read the article by Thankappan et al1, with great interest. In my reading I have discovered that the prevalence of low HDL was based upon HDL<40 mg/dl irrespective of the gender and not “< 40 mg/dl for males and <50 mg/dl for females” as stated in the methodology and footnote of the Table III1.

Table

Prevalence of low HDL cholesterol (%) in urban, rural, slum and the total population by sex

There was another paradox in the data. The data indicated prevalence of diabetes to be more in rural than in urban areas and trended to be more in women than in men. Additionally, it is reported that urban subjects have lower HDL than the rural subjects. These observations are somewhat at variance with the published data23456. It is possible that men and women in Kerala state are different from other subpopulations of India or there is a possible error in analysis of the data. Either way it needs to be verified and reconfirmed or corrected.