Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35885071›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2022

Comparison of Two Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Methods for the Measurement of Lipoprotein Particle Concentrations.

Martin Rief, Reinhard Raggam, Peter Rief, Philipp Metnitz, Tatjana Stojakovic, Markus Reinthaler, Marianne Brodmann, Winfried März, Hubert Scharnagl, Günther Silbernagel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. [Laboratory diagnostics of lipid metabolism disorders].Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2023
    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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Martin RiefDivision of General Anaesthesiology, Emergency- and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-7378-2846
Reinhard RaggamDivision of Angiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
Peter RiefDivision of Angiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
Philipp MetnitzDivision of General Anaesthesiology, Emergency- and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
Tatjana StojakovicClinical Institute of Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
Markus ReinthalerDepartment of Cardiology (CBF), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
Marianne BrodmannDivision of Angiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
Winfried MärzClinical Institute of Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
Hubert ScharnaglClinical Institute of Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-2750-006X
Günther SilbernagelDivision of Angiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, A-8036 Graz, Austria.
Medical University of Graz · ATHelmholtz-Zentrum Hereon · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Measuring lipoprotein particle concentrations may help to improve cardiovascular risk stratification. Both the lipofit (Numares) and lipoprofile (LabCorp) NMR methods are widely used for the quantification of lipoprotein particle concentrations. Objective: The aim of the present work was to perform a method comparison between the lipofit and lipoprofile NMR methods. In addition, there was the objective to compare lipofit and lipoprofile measurements of standard lipids with clinical chemistry-based results. Methods: Total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were measured with ß-quantification in serum samples from 150 individuals. NMR measurements of standard lipids and lipoprotein particle concentrations were performed by Numares and LabCorp. Results: For both NMR methods, differences of mean concentrations compared to ß-quantification-derived measurements were ≤5.5% for all standard lipids. There was a strong correlation between ß-quantification- and NMR-derived measurements of total and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (all r > 0.93). For both, the lipofit (r = 0.81) and lipoprofile (r = 0.84) methods, correlation coefficients were lower for HDL cholesterol. There was a reasonable correlation between LDL and HDL lipoprotein particle concentrations measured with both NMR methods (both r > 0.9). However, mean concentrations of major and subclass lipoprotein particle concentrations were not as strong. Conclusions: The present analysis suggests that reliable measurement of standard lipids is possible with these two NMR methods. Harmonization efforts would be needed for better comparability of particle concentration data.

Indexed as

analysishigh-density lipoproteinslipoproteinslipoprotein subclasseslow-density lipoproteinsmethodsnuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyultracentrifugationvery-low-density lipoproteins

Identifiers

PMID35885071
PMCPMC9312544
OpenAlexW4286433323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.