ArticleAtherosclerosis plus2026
Population-based reference intervals for lipid function tests in pregnant and non-pregnant women in Nairobi City, Kenya.
Article in Atherosclerosis plus, 2026. 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.
- Case Report: Variations in theFrontiers in genetics · 2021Article
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
Background: Accurate interpretation of clinical laboratory test results relies on the application of appropriate reference intervals, which differs between populations. Despite this, there is no Kenyan-derived reference values for clinical management of both pregnant and non-pregnant women, potentially leading to diagnostic misclassification. This study established age- and trimester-specific reference intervals for lipid function tests and compare them with the current practice cut-offs. Methods: Lipid parameters were determined in non-pregnant and pregnant women aged 19-29 and 30-40 years, partitioned by trimester. The measured parameters included total cholesterol, low and density lipoproteins, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoproteins, and their ratios. Differences between groups were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Out-of-range analysis were performed between the newly developed reference intervals and the current practice reference values. Results: Significant age- and trimester-specific differences were noted in total cholesterol, low-density lipoproteins, triglycerides, and lipid ratios (p < 0.05), with incremental increases observed in later trimesters. High-density lipoproteins showed variable changes. Out-of-range comparison show significant misclassification: 54 % of pregnant women aged 30-40 years in the trimester two exceeded current low-density lipoproteins reference intervals, while 60 % were misclassified for triglycerides in third trimester. Remarkably, 100 % of women across all groups fell outside the standard high-density lipoproteins reference limits. Conclusion: The current practice reference intervals are inappropriate for clinical assessment of pregnant and non-pregnant women in Nairobi, Kenya. Establishing age- and trimester-specific reference intervals provides a more accurate clinical decision-making tool, enhancing maternal care.
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.