Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39974594›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025

Call for a consensual definition of dyslipidemia in coronary angiography trials.

Aurélien Clerc, Mario Togni, Stephane Cook

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Aurélien ClercCardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Mario TogniCardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Stephane CookCardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dyslipidemia is extensively analyzed in clinical trials investigating its role as a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). However, its definition varies vastly among studies, leading to different attributions to the variable dyslipidemia. The objectives of this study are to verify the hypothesis of a lack of a consensual definition of dyslipidemia in coronary angiography studies and to propose a consensual definition of dyslipidemia, considering the influence of each serum lipid parameter on mortality. A systematic search of coronary angiography studies focusing on dyslipidemia was conducted. We listed definitions and their references in the 258 articles the research found. Out of the 258 articles retrieved in the search, 52 studies (20%) provided a definition of dyslipidemia, and 20 (8%) mentioned the source. We identified 39 different definitions. To mitigate misinterpretations of cardiovascular risk factors, we propose the use of the "lipid triad" components to define dyslipidemia: LDL-cholesterol >3.0 mmol/L for primary prevention and >2.6 mmol/L or >1.4 mmol/L for secondary prevention in patients over/under 75 years old, respectively;

Indexed as

cardiovascular risk factorcoronary angiography (CA)coronary artery diseasedefinitiondyslipidemia (DLP)

Identifiers

PMID39974594
PMCPMC11836034

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.