ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2015
Lipoprotein-apheresis: Austrian consensus on indication and performance of treatment.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Austrian lipid consensus : Interdisciplinary evidence-based recommendations on prevention and treatment of lipid-associated diseases from 15 medical specialist societies].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Apheresis for Management of Lp(a) Hyperlipoproteinemia.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2020Review
- Looking at Lp(a) and Related Cardiovascular Risk: from Scientific Evidence and Clinical Practice.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2019Review
- Hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) - apheresis and emerging therapies.Clinical research in cardiology supplements · 2017Review
- The Italian Consensus Conferences on low density lipoprotein-cholesterol apheresis.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of familial disorders of lipid metabolism in Europe is higher than believed so far. In severely affected patients in whom conventional combined lipid lowering agents are insufficient to achieve target values, patients being intolerant to all the available members of the statin family as well as in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) (100 mg/dl) and progression of atherosclerotic vascular disease, despite even normal low-density lipoproteins (LDL)-cholesterol values, lipoprotein-apheresis treatment is indicated. The Austrian Apheresis Consensus compares the inclusion criteria for patients to be treated in Austria with those from Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, UK and the United States. The cut off level of 100 mg/dl for lipoprotein(a) is higher in Austria as compared to the aforementioned countries (50 or 60 mg/dl, respectively). The available clinical data reveal that regular weekly lipoprotein apheresis not only results in a significant lowering of the respective atherogenic lipid and lipoprotein parameters, but also in a significant decrease in clinical events and interventions. The underlying mechanisms such as non-lipid effects, side effects as well as the different available treatment principles are compared. For patients meeting the inclusion criteria, lipoprotein apheresis is a safe and effective therapy significantly reducing vascular events.
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.