↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol estimation at very low levels

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol estimation at very low levels
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0852-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renato Quispe, Aditya Hendrani, Mohamed B. Elshazly, Erin D. Michos, John W. McEvoy, Michael J. Blaha, Maciej Banach, Krishnaji R. Kulkarni, Peter P. Toth, Josef Coresh, Roger S. Blumenthal, Steven R. Jones, Seth S. Martin

Abstract

As the approach to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering becomes increasingly intensive, accurate assessment of LDL-C at very low levels warrants closer attention in individualized clinical efficacy and safety evaluation. We aimed to assess the accuracy of LDL-C estimation at very low levels by the Friedewald equation, the de facto clinical standard, and compare its accuracy with a novel, big data-derived LDL-C estimate. In 191,333 individuals with Friedewald LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, we compared the accuracy of Friedewald and novel LDL-C values in relation to direct measurements by Vertical Auto Profile ultracentrifugation. We examined differences (estimate minus ultracentrifugation) and classification according to levels initiating additional safety precautions per clinical practice guidelines. Friedewald values were less than ultracentrifugation measurement, with a median difference (25th to 75th percentile) of -2.4 (-7.4 to 0.6) at 50-69 mg/dL, -7.0 (-16.2 to -1.2) at 25-39 mg/dL, and -29.0 (-37.4 to -19.6) at < 15 mg/dL. The respective values by novel estimation were -0.1 (-1.5 to 1.3), -1.1 (-2.5 to 0.3), and -2.7 (-4.9 to 0.0) mg/dL. Among those with Friedewald LDL-C < 15, 15 to < 25, and 25 to < 40 mg/dL, the classification was discordantly low in 94.9%, 82.6%, and 59.9% of individuals as compared with 48.3%, 42.4%, and 22.4% by novel estimation. Estimation of even lower LDL-C values (by Friedewald and novel methods) is even more inaccurate. More often than not, a Friedewald value < 40 mg/dL is underestimated, which translates into unnecessary safety alarms that could be reduced in half by estimation using our novel method.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Computer Science 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,009,982
of 12,253,439 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,198
of 1,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,958
of 264,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#36
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,253,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.