Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21935654›Full record

ArticleLipids2011

Lipoprint adequately estimates LDL size distribution, but not absolute size, versus polyacrylamide gradient gel electrophoresis.

Krista A Varady, Benoît Lamarche

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lipids, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Krista A VaradyDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA. varady@uic.edu
Benoît Lamarche
Université Laval · CAUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, a new cost-effective and less labor-intensive technique termed the "lipoprint LDL system" was developed to measure LDL particle size. However, the agreement between lipoprint and previously validated techniques, such as polyacrylamide gradient gel electrophoresis (PGGE), has never been tested. Therefore, we measured LDL size by lipoprint and PGGE in 16 obese subjects at 4 different time points. Lipoprint significantly overestimated (P = 0.003) integrated LDL particle size by 1.1 ± 3.0 Å when compared to PGGE. As for distribution, there was good agreement between methods for the estimation of large, medium, and small particles (mean difference between the methods was <3% for each parameter). Correlational analysis also revealed good relationships between methods for the proportion of large (r = 0.81, P < 0.0001), medium (r = 0.67, P < 0.0001), and small (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001) particles. In sum, although there is good agreement between lipoprint and PGGE for the determination of LDL size distribution, absolute LDL size values may differ between the two methods.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCholesterol, HDLCholesterol, LDLElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityParticle SizeRisk FactorsStatistics as TopicTriglyceridesCholesterol, HDLCholesterol, LDLTriglycerides

Identifiers

PMID21935654
OpenAlexW1998983890

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.