ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2024
Assessment of three equations to calculate plasma LDL cholesterol concentration in fasting and non-fasting hypertriglyceridemic patients.
Article in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLow-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration was calculated for many years using the Friedewald equation, but those from Sampson and extended-Martin-Hopkins perform differently. Their accuracy in fasting hypertriglyceridemia and non-fasting state were compared and the clinical impact of implementing these equations on risk classification and on the setting of lipid treatment goals was assessed.
methodsSeven thousand six standard lipid profiles and LDL-C concentrations measured after ultracentrifugation (uLDL-C) were retrospectively included. uLDL-C were compared to calculated LDL-C in terms of correlation, root mean square error, residual error, mean absolute deviations and cardiovascular stratification.
resultsIn fasting state (n=5,826), Sampson equation was the most accurate, exhibited the highest percentage of residual error lower than 0.13 mmol/L (67 vs. 57 % and 63 % using Friedewald, or extended-Martin-Hopkins equations respectively) and the lowest misclassification rate. However, the superiority of this equation was less pronounced when triglyceride concentration (TG) <4.5 mmol/L were considered. In post-prandial state (n=1,180), extended-Martin-Hopkins was the most accurate equation, exhibited the highest percentage of residual error lower than 0.13 mmol/L (73 vs. 39 % and 57 % using Friedewald and Sampson equation respectively). Overall, the negative bias with Sampson equation may lead to undertreatment. Conversely, a positive bias was observed with extended Martin-Hopkins.
conclusionsNone of the equations tested are accurate when TG>4.52 mmol/L. When TG<4.52 mmol/L both Sampson and Martin-Hopkins equations performed better than Friedewald. The switch to one or the other should take in account their limitations, their ease of implementation into the lab software and the proportion of non-fasting patients.
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.