Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20447543›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American College of Cardiology2010

Apolipoprotein(a) isoforms and the risk of vascular disease: systematic review of 40 studies involving 58,000 participants.

Sebhat Erqou, Alexander Thompson, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Danish Saleheen, Stephen Kaptoge, Santica Marcovina, John Danesh

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
21.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

148 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 329 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Lipoprotein(a): structural basis, bidirectional risk, and therapeutic frontiers.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sebhat ErqouDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Alexander Thompson
Emanuele Di Angelantonio
Danish Saleheen
Stephen Kaptoge
Santica Marcovina
John Danesh
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/08/014/24067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the association of apolipoprotein(a) (apo[a]) isoforms with cardiovascular disease risk.

backgroundAlthough circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is likely to be a causal risk factor in coronary heart disease (CHD), the magnitude of this association is modest. Lipoprotein(a) particles with smaller, rather than larger, apo(a) isoforms may be stronger risk factors.

methodsInformation was collated from 40 studies published between January 1970 and June 2009 that reported on associations between apo(a) isoforms and risk of CHD or ischemic stroke (involving a total of 11,396 patients and 46,938 controls).

resultsThirty-six studies used broadly comparable phenotyping and analytic methods to assess apo(a) isoform size. These studies yielded a combined relative risk for CHD of 2.08 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.67 to 2.58) for individuals with smaller versus larger apo(a) isoforms (corresponding approximately to 22 or fewer kringle IV type 2 repeats vs. >22 repeats or analogously an apo[a] molecular weight of <640 kDa vs. > or =640 kDa). There was substantial heterogeneity among these studies (I(2) = 85%, 80% to 89%), which was mainly explained by differences in the laboratory methods and analytic approaches used. In the 6 studies of ischemic stroke that used comparable phenotypic methods, the combined relative risk was 2.14 (1.85 to 2.97). Overall, however, only 3 studies made allowances for Lp(a) concentration.

conclusionsPeople with smaller apo(a) isoforms have an approximately 2-fold higher risk of CHD or ischemic stroke than those with larger proteins. Further studies are needed to determine whether the impact of smaller apo(a) isoforms is independent from Lp(a) concentration and other risk factors.

Indexed as

Apoprotein(a)BiomarkersHumansMolecular WeightParticle SizeProtein IsoformsRisk FactorsVascular DiseasesApoprotein(a)BiomarkersProtein Isoforms

Identifiers

PMID20447543
OpenAlexW66857733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.