Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816879›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015

Assessing the Validity of Friedewald's Formula and Anandraja's Formula For Serum LDL-Cholesterol Calculation.

P Krishnaveni, Vanitha Mn Gowda

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Hypertension at 5 months postpartum in women with gestational diabetes.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

P KrishnaveniPostgraduate Student, Department of Biochemistry, M S Ramaiah Medical College and Hospitals , Bangalore, India .
Vanitha Mn GowdaAssociate Professor, Department of Biochemistry, M S Ramaiah Medical College and Hospitals , Bangalore, India .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn important aspect of the assessment of cardiovascular risk for a dyslipidemic subject is the estimation of serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C). There are many homogenous assays currently available for the estimation of serum LDL-C. Most clinical laboratories determine LDL-C (mg/dL) by Friedewald's formula (FF), LDL-C = (TC) - (HDL-C) - (TG/5). Recently Anandaraja and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C, AR-LDL-C = 0.9 TC- (0.9 TG/5)-28. AIM &

objectivesThe aim of the study was: a) to determine if, and to what extent, LDL-C level was underestimated/overestimated when it was calculated using the formulae compared with direct measurement of LDL-C, and b) to determine which of the calculated formulae show maximum correlation with direct LDL cholesterol method at different TG levels. SETTING &

designA cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND

methodsRecord analysis was done from the 370 (TG <400mg/dl) lipid profile reports of patients above 18 years. LDL-C estimation was done by homogenous assay and also calculated using the Friedewald's Formula and Anandaraja's Formula.

resultsThe mean LDL-C levels were 105.17± 43.4, 102.98 ±42.5, and 98.20 ±43.7 mg/dl for D-LDL-C, F-LDL-C and AR-LDL-C, respectively. A good correlation was found between the calculated LDL-C methods and Direct Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol method (D-LDL-C) assay, that is, F-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C (r = 0.937) and AR-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C (r= 0.918). Bland-Altman plot for FF-LDL-C & AR-LDL-C showed minimal negative bias.

conclusionFF-LDL-C correlated maximally with D-LDL-C estimation at all levels of triglycerides except at TG < 100mg/dl. At TG < 100mg/dl, Anandaraja's Formula works better. FF-LDL-C can be used in place of D-LDL-C when the direct method cannot be afforded.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular riskCholesterol calculationDirect assayDyslipidemiaHomogenous assayLow density lipoproteinMethod comparison

Identifiers

PMID26816879
PMCPMC4717736

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.