ArticleLipids in health and disease2024
Prevalence of and factors associated with lipid screening in young people aged 16- to 21 years in the United States: analysis of nationwide cross-sectional data.
Article in Lipids in health and disease, 2024. 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.
- Dyslipidemia in Lebanese children and adolescents: parents' knowledge and practices.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Lebanese physicians on the screening of pediatric dyslipidemias: a KAP cross-sectional study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsThere is no consensus on whether it is worthwhile for young people to undergo lipid screening. An estimate of the national prevalence of lipid screening in this population can serve as a basic parameter in analyses of the utilization and cost-effectiveness of health care services. Previous studies were mostly based on electronic health records or insurance claims data or were restricted to adolescents at younger ages. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of lipid screening and the factors associated with it in young people aged 16- to 21 years in the United States based on a nationally representative sample.
methodsA cross-sectional study of 16- to 21-year-old participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2013-March 2020 (four cycles), was conducted. The prevalence of lipid screening uptake was calculated for each cycle as well as for all four cycles combined, and the associations of lipid screening uptake with the covariates were analysed by logistic regression. An appropriate sample weight was incorporated into the analysis as recommended.
resultsA total of 3,600 participants were included in the analysis, and 32.02% of them had ever received lipid screening at the time of the survey, with no statistically significant secular changes observed over the four cycles. Among the participants, 28.83% received lipid screening within the past 5 years. In multivariable regression analysis adjusted for all covariates, non-Hispanic black ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.43), having health insurance (AOR: 1.54), obesity (AOR: 1.65) and sufficient physical activity (AOR: 1.36) were significantly associated with a greater chance of ever receiving lipid screening.
conclusionsNearly one-third of young people aged 16- to 21 years in the United States have received lipid screening. Ethnicity, health insurance, weight problems, and physical activity level were associated with the likelihood of lipid screening uptake. These findings could help people understand the current situation of lipid screening in young people in the United States and may serve as fundamental parameters in the assessment of the utilization and cost-effectiveness of related health care services.
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.