ArticleMedical science monitor basic research2018
Factors Causing Disagreement between Measured and Calculated Low Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (LDL-C) in Clinical Laboratory Services.
Article in Medical science monitor basic research, 2018. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Lipoprotein Fractions and Lipoprotein-Associated Alpha-Tocopherol After Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients With Severe Obesity.Cardiology research · 2026Article
- Appropriateness of Using Tests for Blood Glucose and Diabetic Complications in Clinical Practice: Experiences in a Hospital in Thailand.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since measured low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) has been available in clinical laboratories, there have been concern about the disagreement between measured and calculated LDL-C and the factors causing their disagreement. MATERIAL AND METHODS Serum lipid concentrations were collected from 1,339 medical records of patients admitted to hospital between 2013 and 2015. They were grouped by their total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations and the agreement between measured and calculated LDL-C was statistically analyzed. RESULTS A strong relationship was found between measured and calculated LDL-C. Significantly disagreements between measured and calculated LDL-C were found in all groups in 2013 and 2014 when lipids were analyzed by Cobas C501. Disagreements found in groups of low TG and low HDL-C concentrations in 2015 were when lipids were analyzed by Abbott Architect ci8200. In groups of calculated LDL-C <1.81 mmol/L, around 80% had the measured LDL-C >1.81 mmol/L. Among various atherogenic indices, non-HDL-C showed the strongest relationship with LDL-C, while TC to HDL-C ratio showed the strongest agreement with the LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS The disagreement between measured and calculated LDL-C in a clinical laboratory seemed to depend on the analytical system used, and was probably associated with individual laboratory variations.
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.