Evidence mapPaperPMID 16960899Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2006

Reference distributions for apolipoproteins AI and B and B/AI ratios: comparison of a large cohort to the world's literature.

Robert F Ritchie, Glenn E Palomaki, Louis M Neveux, Thomas B Ledue, Santica Marcovina, Olga Navolotskaia

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2006. 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

6 authors.

Robert F RitchieFoundation for Blood Research, Scarborough, Maine. ritchie@fbr.org
Glenn E Palomaki
Louis M Neveux
Thomas B Ledue
Santica Marcovina
Olga Navolotskaia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limiting the clinical utility of apolipoproteins AI (apo AI) and B (apo B) and the apo B/AI ratios until the last decade has been the lack of satisfactory methods for quantifying serum levels and credible reference materials. Great technological strides have been made in the last few years. The remaining barrier to more relevant and cost-effective use of serum protein data for diagnosis and prognosis has been the availability of widely recognized reliable reference intervals from birth to old age for both males and females. A total of 82 publications reporting reference intervals have been identified that meet most of the same inclusion criteria used in our prior six studies. These have been analyzed statistically and compared to similar studies, i.e., sufficient number, listed subject criteria, method, and reference material, in general terms. Published smaller studies with constrained age ranges, agree on average with our large series of life-long reference intervals that range from less than one year to over 80 years. This study was performed to assess the degree of agreement between smaller reference interval studies to our large population analysis. This meta-analysis provides support and reassurance that many of the smaller reference intervals published previously fall within reasonable limits of out large population.

Indexed as

Age DistributionApolipoprotein A-IApolipoproteins BCohort StudiesEthnicityHumansReference StandardsApolipoprotein A-IApolipoproteins B

Identifiers

PMID16960899
PMCPMC6807339

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.