ArticleJAMA network open2021
Comparison of Methods to Estimate Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Patients With High Triglyceride Levels.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01698489 (The Very Large Database of Lipids), which is not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
The Very Large Database of Lipids (VLDL): A Clinical Laboratory Big Data Project
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.
- Remnant cholesterol and two decades risk of incident hypertension: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of 23 Equations for Estimating LDL Cholesterol in a Clinical Laboratory Database of 5,051,467 Patients.Global heart · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol equations in patients with dyslipidaemia receiving cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibition.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2023Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning Models and Conventional Formulas for LDL Cholesterol Estimation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of conventional formulas and machine learning models for estimating serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- New Methods for Calculating LDL-Cholesterol and Related Biomarkers of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- The discordance of remnant cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as a predictor of diabetes, diabetic microvascular diseases, and cardiovascular disease.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- Low-Density Lipoprotein Estimated by Various Equations in Patients With Obesity.Journal of obesity · 2026Observational
- Comparing Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Population Estimates Using Different Predictive Equations: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2018.National health statistics reports · 2025Article
- A longitudinal analysis of population-level lipid and apolipoprotein trends over two decades: descriptive assessment using patient medians in a Swedish tertiary care center.Lipids in health and disease · 2025Article
- Comparative validation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol estimation formulas in older Georgian adults.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Neural network model outperforms conventional equations in LDL cholesterol estimation: A comparative study of 188,887 Chinese individuals with focus on hypertriglyceridemia.Atherosclerosis plus · 2025Article
- Medication-Stratified Analysis of LDL-C Equation Miscalibration in Diabetes: Evidence from the All of Us Research Program and a Medication-Agnostic Machine-Learning Correction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Challenges in the Choice of Nonstatin Medications for Low-Density Lipoprotein-C Lowering for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Review
- Comparative Evaluation of 24 LDL-C Estimation Equations Against Direct Assays in Two Independent Cohorts.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Phthalate exposure is associated with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis: The Aragon Workers' Health Study (AWHS).American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- Standardising lipid testing and reporting in the United Kingdom; a joint statement by HEART UK and The Association for Laboratory Medicine.Annals of clinical biochemistry · 2025Review
- Impact of fasting duration on LDL cholesterol concentrations estimated by the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, and Sampson/NIH equations.Biochemia medica · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is typically estimated with the Friedewald or Martin/Hopkins equation; however, if triglyceride levels are 400 mg/dL or greater, laboratories reflexively perform direct LDL-C (dLDL-C) measurement. The use of direct chemical LDL-C assays and estimation of LDL-C via the National Institutes of Health Sampson equation are not well validated, and data on the accuracy of LDL-C estimation at higher triglyceride levels are limited. Objective: To compare an extended Martin/Hopkins equation for triglyceride values of 400 to 799 mg/dL with the Friedewald and Sampson equations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated consecutive patients at clinical sites across the US with patient lipid distributions representative of the US population in the Very Large Database of Lipids from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015, with triglyceride levels of 400 to 799 mg/dL. Data analysis was performed from November 9, 2020, to March 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy in LDL-C classification according to guideline-based categories and absolute errors between estimated LDL-C and dLDL-C levels. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to derivation and validation data sets. Levels of dLDL-C were measured by vertical spin-density gradient ultracentrifugation. The LDL-C levels were estimated using the Friedewald method, with a fixed ratio of triglycerides to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C ratio of 5:1), extended Martin/Hopkins equation with a flexible ratio, and Sampson equation with VLDL-C estimation by multiple least-squares regression. Results: A total of 111 939 patients (mean [SD] age, 52 [13] years; 65.0% male) with triglyceride levels of 400 to 799 mg/dL were included, representing 2.2% of 5 081 680 patients in the database. Across all individual guideline LDL-C classes (<40, 40-69, 70-99, 100-129, 130-159, 160-189, and ≥190), estimation of LDL-C by the extended Martin/Hopkins equation was most accurate (62.1%) compared with the Friedewald (19.3%) and Sampson (40.4%) equations. In classifying LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL across all triglyceride strata, the extended Martin/Hopkins equation was most accurate (67.3%) compared with Friedewald (5.1%) and Sampson (26.4%) equations. In addition, for classifying LDL-C levels less than 40 mg/dL across all triglyceride strata, the extended Martin/Hopkins equation was most accurate (57.2%) compared with the Friedewald (4.3%) and Sampson (14.4%) equations. However, considerable underclassification of LDL-C occurred. The magnitude of error between the Martin/Hopkins equation estimation and dLDL-C was also smaller: at LDL-C levels less than 40 mg/dL, 2.7% of patients had 30 mg/dL or greater differences between dLDL-C and estimated LDL-C using the Martin/Hopkins equation compared with the Friedewald (92.5%) and Sampson (38.7%) equations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the extended Martin/Hopkins equation offered greater LDL-C accuracy compared with the Friedewald and Sampson equations in patients with triglyceride levels of 400 to 799 mg/dL. However, regardless of method used, caution is advised with LDL-C estimation in this triglyceride range.
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.