ArticleCureus2025
Implementation and Assessment of a Lipoprotein(a) Curriculum for Internal Medicine Residents: A Longitudinal Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel Therapies, Residual Risk, Familial Hypercholesterolemia, and Digital Tools: Multispecialty Insights from a Dyslipidemia Management Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an independent risk factor for the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and is recognized in guidelines as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the more aggressive management of lipids. However, the clinical utilization of Lp(a) testing has been low, especially among internal medicine providers. Methods: We designed a 30-minute presentation for internal medicine residents that included a general overview of ASCVD risk assessment, differences between Lp(a) and regular low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and examples of how elevated Lp(a) can change clinical management. Resident confidence in ordering and interpreting Lp(a) was assessed by pre- and post-surveys. Data on Lp(a) ordering practices were abstracted from the electronic medical record for the three months prior to and after the presentation. Results: The presentation was administered to 22 interns in the fall of the 2024-2025 academic year and was associated with an increase in participant confidence, with mean survey scores increasing from 10 to 24 out of a maximum score of 25 (p<0.001). Lp(a) tests ordered by participants increased from seven (15% of all residents' Lp(a) orders) in the three months prior to 28 (44% of all residents' Lp(a) orders) in the subsequent three months (p=0.008). Discussion: Lp(a) testing is an underutilized adjunct to ASCVD risk stratification. We developed a brief presentation that was associated with increased confidence regarding the topic of Lp(a) testing as well as changes in practice, as evidenced by increased Lp(a) orders. These encouraging single-center results can help inform future educational efforts on the topic of ASCVD prevention.
conclusionAn Lp(a) curriculum for internal medicine residents showed promise in addressing the lack of awareness of Lp(a) testing. Further research is needed to assess the generalizability and retention of this curriculum.
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.