ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2022
The Clinical Importance of Differentiating Monogenic Familial Hypercholesterolemia from Polygenic Hypercholesterolemia.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and prognosis of genetically proven familial hypercholesterolemia in subjects with angiographically documented premature coronary artery disease.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Does Genotype Affect the Efficacy of PCSK9 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Familial Hypercholesterolemia?Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025Review
- Prevalence and penetrance of pathogenic and likely pathogenicFrontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Enhancing Familial Hypercholesterolemia Detection in South Korea: A Targeted Screening Approach Integrating National Program and Genetic Cascade Screening.Korean circulation journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Pitfalls and Challenges in Diagnosis and Treatment.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
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
purpose of reviewThe current review discusses the importance and significance of differentiating monogenic familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) from polygenic hypercholesterolemia for clinical purpose. RECENT
findingsConsistent scientific evidence have demonstrated that, compared to polygenic hypercholesterolemia, monogenic FH patients are at significantly higher risk for premature coronary heart disease (CHD). This is despite both disease entities having a comparable low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) level. Monogenic FH also has poorer therapeutic response compared to its polygenic counterpart. However, there are no current available clinical management guidelines that stratify hypercholesterolemia patients based on genotype. Monogenic FH patients are at higher risk for CHD with poorer therapeutic response. Thus, genotype testing should be performed when available. There is also an urgency to develop genotype-based clinical guideline that stratify patients on genotype and not only based on traditionally known cardiovascular risk factors.
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.