ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2024
Comparison of Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL measurement in hyperlipidaemic and normolipidaemic adults in a Turkish population.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2024. 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.
- Comparative evaluation of LDL-cholesterol estimation using machine learning algorithms and conventional equations in a large middle eastern cohort.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Applicability of LDL-cholesterol calculation formulas in hypertriglyceridemia: Insights from the Vojvodina.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2026Article
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
Methods: The study was a retrospective investigation by the Department of Medical Biochemistry of the Ankara Training and Research Hospital between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022. Our study evaluated the results of 6297 patients aged 18-95 years who underwent cholesterol panel TC, TG, HDL-C, and direct LDL-C in our laboratory. The estimated LDL-C was calculated according to Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae. Results: All three formulae showed a stronger positive correlation with d-LDL-C (0.905, 0.897, and 0.886, respectively, for all data, p<0.001). In addition, when we compared the total median difference (1st-3rd quartile) of all formulae, it was -0.69 (-1.62 to 0.39) for Friedewald, 0.034 (-0.74 to 1.14) for Martin/Hopkins and -0.40 (-1.19 to 0.55) for Sampson. According to Passing Bablok regression analyses, the intercept was determined as -0.97 (95% CI=-1.01 to -0.93), 0.41 (95%=0.37 to 0.44) and -0.05 (-0.08 to -0. 03) and slopes were calculated as 1.083 (95% CI=1.07-1.09), 0.88 (0.88 to 0.89) and 0. 90 (95%=0.89 to 0.90) for Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins and Sampson, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the Martin/Hopkins formula performed better than the Friedewald and Sampson formulas. We figured out utilizing the Martin/ Hopkins formula as a good alternative for estimated LDLC in Turkish adults.
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.