ArticleDiabetes research and clinical practice2012
Quantification of concordance and discordance between apolipoprotein-B and the currently recommended non-HDL-cholesterol goals for cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with diabetes and hypertriglyceridemia.
Article in Diabetes research and clinical practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Apolipoprotein B discordance with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in relation to coronary artery calcification in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).Journal of clinical lipidologyTrial
- Origin and therapy for hypertriglyceridaemia in type 2 diabetes.World journal of diabetes · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsIn patients with diabetes and hypertriglyceridemia, LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) provides an inaccurate reflection of LDL particle burden. The relative value of non-HDL-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein-B (Apo-B) in estimating cardiovascular risk is controversial. We assessed the discordance between non-HDL-C and Apo-B targets in patients with diabetes with TG 200-499 mg/dl.
methodsData from 1430 determinations of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and Apo-B in ambulatory patients with diabetes were analyzed. Rates of discordance were calculated, based on the currently recommended LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and Apo-B goals.
resultsIn patients with non-HDL-C goal of <130 mg/dl, there was a discordance with Apo-B level goal of <90 mg/dl, in 31% of samples. In patients with non-HDL-C goal of <100 mg/dl, 6% of samples had Apo-B ≥80 and 18% had Apo-B <80 mg/dl. Using the Apo-B goal of <70 mg/dl, these numbers were 37% and 3.5% respectively. There was also a significant gender difference, i.e. under-estimation of risk by suggested non-HDL-C cut-offs, in females, compared to males.
conclusionsIn patients with diabetes and hypertriglyceridemia, a considerable discordance exists between non-HDL-C and Apo-B. Our data suggest a need for prospective studies to compare the relative merits of non-HDL-C and Apo-B targets in the assessment of cardiovascular risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.