ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2025
Elevated lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular outcomes in prediabetes and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2025. 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.
- Comments: "Association between lipoprotein(a) and coronary heart disease risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus and evaluation of statin treatment effects".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and diabetes have been identified as potential risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD). This study investigates various Lp(a) levels' impact on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in pre-diabetics and diabetics. Methods: We included retrospective studies in English until May 2023, exploring the link between high Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes in humans with diabetes, prediabetes, or normal glucose levels. Studies were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, emphasizing detailed population and outcome data. We excluded studies with major methodological issues, low-quality data, missing key information, duplicates, and non-human subjects. We included high-quality retrospective studies on Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes, using risk of bias tools like Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to ensure data integrity, and resolved discrepancies through discussion. Binary random-effects models were employed to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Leave one out sensitivity analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using I Results: A total of 20,271 patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and non-diabetics were included from three studies. In our analysis, compared to non-diabetics with Lp(a) <10 mg/dL, the risk of ASCVD increased with an increase in Lp(a) levels among pre-diabetics [Lp(a) <10 mg/dL (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.17-1.67), Lp(a) 10-30 mg/dL (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.30-1.96), Lp(a) >30 mg/dL (HR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.49-2.90)] and diabetics [Lp(a) <10 mg/dL (HR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.97-2.98), Lp(a) 10-30 mg/dL (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.64-3.12), Lp(a) >30 mg/dL (HR: 4.17, 95% CI: 3.24-5.37)] with statistical significance (P<0.01). Conclusions: High Lp(a) (>30 mg/dL) is associated with more ASCVD events in diabetics and pre-diabetics
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.