ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Comparison of three equations for estimating low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol in the rural northeastern region of Thailand.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel equation for the estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the Saudi Arabian population: a derivation and validation study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effect of Lycopene Supplementation on Some Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Markers of Endothelial Function in Iranian Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
- Comparison of three equations for estimating low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol in the rural northeastern region of Thailand.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death worldwide, and the detection of LDL-C contributes to reducing risks. However, the LDL-C is rarely evaluated according to the gold standard method because it is costly and time-consuming. This study aimed to determine the agreement of LDL-C among three equations, namely Friedewald's equation, Puavilai's equation, and Dansethakul's equation.
methodsA cross-sectional descriptive study.
resultsUsing the data of lipid measurement from a specific group of people in the remote rural area, we found that the Thai equations have more superior agreement with direct measurement than the Friedewald equation (ICC = 0.870, 95% CI = 0.857-0.882) when the agreement of continuous data was used for total analysis. Although the categorical analysis that gave better agreement was from Friedewald equation (K index = 0.730, 95% CI = 0.720-0.751), the findings from this study confirmed the population-specific use of Pauvilai's equation and Dansethakul's equation for determining the LDL-C.
conclusionPauvilai's equation showed better agreement with direct measurement for LDL-C. Thus, it could be considered as an alternative for the direct method, particularly in laboratories in rural areas in Thailand.
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.