ArticleJournal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis2018
Validity of a Novel Method for Estimating Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels in Cardiovascular Disease Patients Treated with Statins.
Article in Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Performance of Martins's and Sampson's Formulae for Calculation of LDL-C in Indian Population: A Single Center Retrospective Study.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2024Article
- Remnant cholesterol and the risk of aortic valve calcium progression: insights from the MESA study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Article
- Correlation of extended Martin/Hopkins equation with a direct homogeneous assay in assessing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Comparison of Novel Equations for Estimating Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe Friedewald equation is the standard method for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels [LDL-C(F)] and fixes the ratio of triglyceride (TG) to very LDL-C at 5. However, this has been reported to underestimate LDL-C, particularly in patients with LDL-C ＜70 mg/dL. A novel method for LDL-C estimation [LDL-C(M)] using an adjustable factor instead of a fixed value of 5 has recently been proposed. The purpose of this study was to validate LDL-C(M) in Japanese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) treated with statins.
methodsIn 385 consecutive CVD patients treated with statins, LDL-C(M) and LDL-C(F) levels were compared with directly measured LDL-C [LDL-C(D)].
resultsMean LDL-C(D), LDL-C(F), and LDL-C(M) were 81.7±25.5, 76.4±24.6, and 79.9±24.5 mg/dL, respectively. In all patients, both LDL-C(F) and LDL-C(M) were significantly correlated with LDL-C(D) [LDL-C(F) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.974, p＜0.001; LDL-C(M) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.987, p＜0.001]. In patients with LDL-C(D) ＜70 mg/dL, LDL-C(M) showed a better correlation with LDLC(D) compared with LDL-C(F) [LDL-C(M) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.935, p＜0.001; LDL-C(F) vs. LDLC(D): R=0.868, p＜0.001]. In contrast, the correlation of LDL-C(D) with LDL-C(M) or LDL-C(F) was similar in patients with LDL-C(D) ≥70 mg/dL.
conclusionsIn Japanese patients with CVD treated with statins, LDL-C level estimated by this novel method might be more accurate than those estimated using the Friedewald equation for LDL-C levels ＜70 mg/dL.
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.