ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
The accuracy of four formulas for LDL-C calculation at the fasting and postprandial states.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural network model outperforms conventional equations in LDL cholesterol estimation: A comparative study of 188,887 Chinese individuals with focus on hypertriglyceridemia.Atherosclerosis plus · 2025Article
- Assessing the clinical implications of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol equations using Nigerian data.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing Performance of Martins's and Sampson's Formulae for Calculation of LDL-C in Indian Population: A Single Center Retrospective Study.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Elevated level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is concerned as one of the main risk factors for cardiovascular disease, in both the fasting and postprandial states. This study aimed to compare the measured LDL-C with LDL-C calculated by the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, Vujovic, and Sampson formulas, and establish which formula could provide the most reliable LDL-C results for Chinese subjects, especially at the postprandial state. Methods: Twenty-six subjects were enrolled in this study. The blood samples were collected from all the subjects before and after taking a daily breakfast. The calculated LDL-C results were compared with LDL-C measured by the vertical auto profile method, at both the fasting and postprandial states. The percentage difference between calculated and measured LDL-C (total error) and the number of results exceeding the total error goal of 12% were established. Results: The calculated LDL-C Conclusion: The Friedewald formula was recommended to calculate fasting LDL-C, while the Sampson formula seemed to be a better choice to calculate postprandial LDL-C levels in Chinese subjects.
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.