Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39286651›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2024

Real-world impact of transitioning from one lipoprotein(a) assay to another in a clinical setting.

Janeni Jeevanathan, Sigrid M Blom, Thomas Olsen, Kirsten B Holven, Erik K Arnesen, Torleif Trydal, Børge G Nordestgaard, Michael Sovershaev, Ying Chen, Kjetil Retterstøl and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Janeni JeevanathanDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1046 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Sigrid M BlomNovartis Norway AS, Nydalen alle 37, 0484, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas OlsenDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1046 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Kirsten B HolvenDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1046 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Erik K ArnesenDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1046 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Torleif TrydalDepartment of Clinical Research, Sørlandet Hospital, SSHF, P.O. Box 416 Lundsiden, 4604, Kristiansand, Norway.
Børge G NordestgaardThe Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 73, opgang 7, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Michael SovershaevFürst Medical Laboratory, P. O. Box 158 Alnabru, 0614, Oslo, Norway.
Ying ChenFürst Medical Laboratory, P. O. Box 158 Alnabru, 0614, Oslo, Norway.
Kjetil RetterstølDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1046 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Jacob J ChristensenDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1046 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: Different lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] assays may affect risk stratification of individuals and thus clinical decision-making. We aimed to investigate how transitioning between Lp(a) assays at a large central laboratory affected the proportion of individuals with Lp(a) result above clinical thresholds. Methods: We studied nationwide clinical laboratory data including 185,493 unique individuals (47.7 % women) aged 18-50 years with 272,463 Lp(a) measurements using Roche (2000-2009) and Siemens Lp(a) assay (2009-2019). Results: While the majority of individuals (66-75 %) had low levels of Lp(a) (<30 mg/dL) independent of the assay used, the Roche assay detected 20 % more individuals with Lp(a) >50 mg/dL, 40 % more individuals with Lp(a) >100 mg/dL and 80 % more individuals with Lp(a) > 180 mg/dL than the currently used Siemens assay, likely due to calibration differences. Conclusion: Transitioning from one Lp(a) immunoassay to another had significant impact on Lp(a) results, particularly in individuals approaching clinically relevant Lp(a) thresholds.

Indexed as

LipidsLipoprotein(a)Lipoprotein(a) assay

Identifiers

PMID39286651
PMCPMC11402909

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.