These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessing the Practical Differences in LDL-C Estimates Calculated by Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, or NIH Equation 2: An Observation Cross-Sectional Study.
    Author: Wang I, Rahman MH, Hou S, Lin HW.
    Journal: J Lipid Atheroscler; 2023 Sep; 12(3):252-266. PubMed ID: 37800109.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) remains a clinically important cholesterol target in primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The present study aimed to assess the practical differences among three equations utilized for the estimation of LDL-C: the Friedewald, the Martin/Hopkins, and the NIH equation 2. METHODS: Blood lipid measurements from 4,556 noninstitutionalized participants, aged 12 to 80, were obtained from the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey study. We 1) assessed the differences between three calculated LDL-C estimates, 2) examined the correlations between LDL-C estimates using correlation coefficients and regression, and 3) investigated the degree of agreement in classifying individuals into the LDL-C category using weighted Kappa and percentage of agreement. RESULTS: The differences in LDL-C estimates between equations varied by sex and triglyceride levels (p<0.001). Overall, the mean of absolute differences between Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins was 3.17 mg/dL (median=2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] [3.07-3.27]). The mean of absolute differences between Friedewald and NIH Equation 2 was 2.08 mg/dL (median=2.0, 95% CI [2.03-2.14]). Friedewald correlated highly with Martin/Hopkins (r=0.991, rho=0.989) and NIH Equation 2 (r=0.998, rho=0.997). Cohen's weighted Kappa=0.92 between Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins, and 0.95 between Friedewald and NIH equation 2. The percentage of agreement in classifying individuals into the same LDL-C category was 93.0% between Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins, and 95.4% between Friedewald and NIH equation 2. CONCLUSION: Understanding the practical differences in LDL-C calculations can be helpful in facilitating decision-making during a paradigm shift.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]