Evidence mapPaperPMID 19863872Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2009

Low-density lipoprotein and apolipoprotein B: clinical use in patients with coronary heart disease.

William C Cromwell, Thomas A Barringer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

2 authors.

William C CromwellDivision of Atherosclerosis and Lipoprotein Disorders, Presbyterian Cardiovascular Institute, 125 Baldwin Avenue, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28204, USA. wcromwell@gmail.com
Thomas A Barringer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Managing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is an integral part of clinical practice. What remains controversial is whether we are using the best measure of LDL quantity for this purpose. Historically, the cholesterol content of LDL particles (LDLC) has been used to express LDL quantity. However, because of variability in the cholesterol carried in LDL particles, frequent disagreement occurs between LDLC and particle measures of LDL quantity, including apolipoprotein B-100 (apo B) or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) LDL particle number (LDL-P). Studies consistently demonstrate apo B and LDL-P are superior predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and superior indicators of low CHD risk on lipid-lowering therapy. Recent recommendations advocate that, in addition to LDLC and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apo B (or NMR LDL-P) be used as a target of therapy. This article reviews the rationale supporting these recommendations and provides a model for integrating LDL particle measures in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Anticholesteremic AgentsApolipoproteins BBiomarkersCoronary Artery DiseaseHumansHyperlipidemiasLipoproteins, LDLRisk AssessmentAnticholesteremic AgentsApolipoproteins BBiomarkersLipoproteins, LDL

Identifiers

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.