ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Factors Associated with Lipoprotein(a) Testing Among Multiethnic Individuals.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From LDL-C to lipoprotein(a) - those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Lp(a): Global Public Health Concern: Emerging Knowledge and Therapeutic Approaches.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and clinical guidelines recommend incorporating Lp(a) testing in routine care.
objectiveExamine real-world, contemporary clinical testing patterns of Lp(a) among multiethnic populations.
designIn this nested case-control study, we assessed the prevalence and factors associated with Lp(a) testing within a large Northern Californian health system between 2010 and 2021. Incident density matching was used to select controls matched with a case for a case:control ratio of up to 1:5. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between Lp(a) testing, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics.
participantsWe included individuals aged 18 years or older with ≥ 2 primary care visits during the study period. MAIN MEASURES: Lp(a) testing rates over time and factors associated with testing based on demographic, medical, and healthcare utilization variables. KEY
resultsOf the 1,484,410 individuals in the cohort, 14,818 (1.0%) underwent Lp(a) testing. The median Lp(a) level was 35 mg/dL and over a third of individuals had Lp(a) levels > 50 mg/dL. After adjustment, South Asian individuals were three times more likely to have undergone Lp(a) testing, as compared to non-Hispanic White individuals [OR = 3.19, (95% CI = 2.98, 3.41)], while those identified as non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic were significantly less likely to have undergone Lp(a) testing [OR = 0.70, (95% CI = 0.62, 0.80) and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.59, 0.69), respectively]. Those with a history of ASCVD had over twice the odds of undergoing testing [OR = 2.14 (95% CI = 1.99, 2.29)], as did individuals with more frequent primary care visits [OR = 1.99 (95% CI = 1.84, 2.15)].
conclusionsLp(a) testing rates in real-world settings are low, with significant disparities by race, ethnicity, and healthcare utilization. Expanding access to Lp(a) testing may help reduce disparities within ASCVD risk assessment and treatment as new targeted therapeutic agents become available.
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.