ArticleKorean journal of family medicine2015
Measuring Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: Comparison of Direct Measurement by HiSens Reagents and Friedewald Estimation.
Article in Korean journal of family medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect ofSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2019Article
- Requirement for Appropriate Methodology to Evaluate the Clinical Relevance of the Difference in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Concentrations Obtained by Different Methods.Korean journal of family medicine · 2017Article
- Correlation of Friedewald's calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with direct low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in a tertiary care hospital.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirectly measured low density lipoprotein cholesterol (DLDLC) has been reported to be more accurate than calculated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (CLDLC) using the Friedewald equation. However, some limitations of DLDLC have been reported. In this study, we evaluated differences between CLDLC and DLDLC measured using HiSens reagents.
methodsData were collected from 582 persons undergoing routine physical examinations at a general hospital. LDLC measurements were made directly or estimated using the Friedewald formula, and were classified according to the National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. The relationship between these differences and other clinically relevant factors, such as triglyceride (TG) levels, were examined using multiple logistic regression analysis.
resultsThe DLDLC and CLDLC were strongly correlated according to simple linear regression analysis (r=0.917, P<0.001) but the mean difference between measurements was -11.0±15.3 (-62 to 90.5) mg/dL (P<0.001). For more than 10 mg/dL of their absolute differences, the DLDLC was typically lower than the CLDLC. The highest discrepancies in LDLC measurements occurred when LDLC was more than 160 mg/dL and less than 190 mg/dL. Differences in LDLC measurements were prone to striking negative and positive biases dependent on CLDLC and TG concentrations, respectively (all r>0.5).
conclusionUnlike other studies, DLDLC was significantly lower than CLDLC and the large differences in LDLC concentrations were not dependent on TG concentration. Our work suggests that verification of DLDLC accuracy is needed and differences in LDLC measurements should be accounted for in making clinical decisions.
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.