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.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breastfeeding and ApoB in late adolescence: a Hong Kong birth cohort study.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Reference distributions for apolipoproteins AI and B and the apolipoprotein B/AI ratios: a practical and clinically relevant approach in a large cohort.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.