ArticleEJIFCC2024
Correlation Analysis of Direct LDL Measurement and Calculated LDL Methods in Lipid Profile Assessment: A Comprehensive Study.
Article in EJIFCC, 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.
- Comparison of Four Formulas for Calculating LDL-Cholesterol with the Direct Homogeneous Method.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of 24 LDL-C Estimation Equations Against Direct Assays in Two Independent Cohorts.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assessing LDL cholesterol is pivotal for cardiovascular risk evaluation. While direct LDL measurement is accurate, calculated LDL methods offer practicality and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to evaluate the correlation between direct LDL measurement and various calculated LDL methods, shedding light on their clinical utility. Methods: A retrospective analysis of lipid profiles from 1075 patients was conducted, encompassing direct LDL measurement and calculation of LDL using nine different methods. Statistical analyses, including correlation coefficients and scatter plots, were employed to assess the agreement between direct LDL and calculated LDL methods. Results: Surprisingly, all calculated LDL methods exhibited a robust correlation with direct LDL measurement across the study cohort. The Friedewald equation, as well as modified equations demonstrated particularly robust correlations. These findings indicate the reliability of calculated LDL methods in estimating LDL cholesterol levels. Discussion: The significant correlation observed between direct LDL measurement and calculated LDL methods underscores the clinical utility of the latter. While direct LDL measurement remains the gold standard, calculated LDL methods offer practical advantages, particularly in resource-limited settings. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study highlights the excellent correlation between direct LDL measurement and calculated LDL methods in lipid profile assessment. Clinicians can leverage calculated LDL methods as reliable alternatives for LDL cholesterol estimation, facilitating efficient cardiovascular risk evaluation in routine clinical practice. Further research may explore the optimal use of calculated LDL methods in specific patient populations, enhancing their clinical applicability and utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39810892PMC11726332What 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.