ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Performance of Various Calculated Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Methods in the Indian Population: A Hospital-Based Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent times, there has been a surge in proposed alternative approaches to computing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), with a focus on enhancing precision, particularly within diverse demographic and clinical groups. Our aim is to assess the agreement, precision, and practicality of these methods compared to direct LDL-C measurements, with the goal of identifying the most effective approach for estimating LDL-C in the Indian context.
methodsIt is a retrospective analytical study. Lipid profile data were gathered from the laboratory and organized in Microsoft Excel for analysis. LDL-C was computed using three different methods: the Friedwald formula, the Martin-Hopkins formula, and Sampson's formula. These calculations were then compared with the direct method of LDL-C estimation in two distinct groups: when triglyceride (TG) levels were less than 400 mg/dL and when TG levels exceeded 400 mg/dL. Bland-Altman plots were generated, and concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were computed to determine the most suitable calculated method.
resultsData from 1,776 participants were analysed and divided into two groups. In both Group 1 (TG < 400 mg/dL) and Group 2 (TG > 400 mg/dL) considering bias, limits of agreements, and correlation coefficient, as seen on the Bland-Altman and CCC, Martin-Hopkins equation was found to be performing better than Friedwald and Sampson's equation.
conclusionIn this study, the Martin-Hopkins formula appears to be the most appropriate choice for precise LDL-C level measurements and indicated improved accuracy and consistency in LDL-C measurements, especially in individuals with elevated TG levels. This underscores its importance in ensuring precise assessment and suitable clinical management.
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.