Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41637549›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in lipidology2026

Nonfasting lipid testing: all the good reasons to do it, and potential physician and patient behaviors preventing its implementation.

Pinhao Xiang, Khashayar Hanjani, Gordon A Francis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in lipidology, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Pinhao XiangDepartment of Medicine, Centre for Heart Lung Innovation, Providence Research.
Khashayar HanjaniDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.
Gordon A FrancisDepartment of Medicine, Centre for Heart Lung Innovation, Providence Research.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe purpose of this report is to summarize evidence supporting the use of nonfasting lipid testing for cardiovascular risk assessment, the potential reasons nonfasting lipid testing predicts cardiovascular risk better than fasting measurement, and to provide a preliminary survey of the status of adoption of nonfasting lipid testing by individual physicians and patients. RECENT

findingsThere is increased awareness of the importance of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol, which is increased after eating, as a key factor predicting risk for ischemic vascular disease. Nonfasting lipid measurement is now recommended in guidelines and consensus statements worldwide, but has not yet been adopted in many countries. Preliminary evidence suggests physician's practice of requesting a fasting glucose along with a lipid profile is decreasing over time, but still limits implementation of nonfasting lipid testing. Patient's perception of the optimal conditions for lipid testing as well as their preferred time of day to perform the test may also be limiting adoption of nonfasting measurements. SUMMARY: Nonfasting testing is now accepted as the preferred method of lipid measurement for cardiovascular risk prediction and lipid target achievement. Further acceptance of nonfasting lipid testing requires increased awareness by physicians and patients of the rationale for this recommendation.

Indexed as

FastingLipidsPhysiciansCardiovascular DiseasesHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansLipidsatherosclerosiscardiovascular risk assessmentcoronary diseaselipid profilenonfasting

Identifiers

PMID41637549
PMCPMC12978730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.