马丁公式最适合计算低密度脂蛋白胆固醇

Pub Date : 2024-05-09 DOI:10.25259/jlp-2022-7-20-(1343)
Fatima Farheen, Sudha Ambiger, Kamarudin Jaalam, Shivalingappa Javali
{"title":"马丁公式最适合计算低密度脂蛋白胆固醇","authors":"Fatima Farheen, Sudha Ambiger, Kamarudin Jaalam, Shivalingappa Javali","doi":"10.25259/jlp-2022-7-20-(1343)","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nDue to the cost-effectiveness, most of the laboratories in India estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with the Friedewald’s formula. There were many shortcomings of the Friedewald’s formula. Recently, Martins have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C. The present study was undertaken to calculate LDL-C using various formulae (Friedewald’s formula, Anandaraja’s formula, and Martin’s formula) and to compare directly measured LDL-C with calculated LDL-C at various ranges of triglyceride (TG) concentration.\n\n\n\nThe present study compared LDL-C measured by Martin’s formula, Friedewald’s formula, and Anandaraja’s formula with directly measured LDL In 280 Outpatient fasting samples between the age group of 18 and 50 years. Depending on the TG values, study samples are divided into four groups. Group 1: <200 mg/dL, Group 2: 200–300 mg/dL, Group 3: 300–400 mg/dL, Group 4: >400 mg/dL.\n\n\n\nThis was performed by the Statistical package for social sciences version 16. Paired t test and pearson correlation were performed to find the significant difference and correlation between direct LDL-C and calculated LDL-C by different formula.\n\n\n\nMartin’s formula shows highest correlation with r-value of (0.9979) compared to Friedewald’s (0.9857) and Anandaraja’s (0.9683) r-values. The mean difference was least for Martin’s formula (0.31 ± 3.53) compared to other formulae. Among all the groups, the percentage of error was least for Martin’s formula (0.23%). Martin’s LDL-C shows highest concordance (90.90%) compared to Friedewald’s (79.60%) and Anandaraja’s formulae (82.90%).\n\n\n\nAmong all the groups, Martin’s formula shows highest correlation, least percentage of error, highest concordance, and least mean differences. At all TG levels, Martin’s formula is the best formula compared to the Friedewald’s formula and Anandaraja’s formula.\n","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":" 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Martin’s formula is best to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol\",\"authors\":\"Fatima Farheen, Sudha Ambiger, Kamarudin Jaalam, Shivalingappa Javali\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/jlp-2022-7-20-(1343)\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nDue to the cost-effectiveness, most of the laboratories in India estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with the Friedewald’s formula. There were many shortcomings of the Friedewald’s formula. Recently, Martins have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C. The present study was undertaken to calculate LDL-C using various formulae (Friedewald’s formula, Anandaraja’s formula, and Martin’s formula) and to compare directly measured LDL-C with calculated LDL-C at various ranges of triglyceride (TG) concentration.\\n\\n\\n\\nThe present study compared LDL-C measured by Martin’s formula, Friedewald’s formula, and Anandaraja’s formula with directly measured LDL In 280 Outpatient fasting samples between the age group of 18 and 50 years. Depending on the TG values, study samples are divided into four groups. Group 1: <200 mg/dL, Group 2: 200–300 mg/dL, Group 3: 300–400 mg/dL, Group 4: >400 mg/dL.\\n\\n\\n\\nThis was performed by the Statistical package for social sciences version 16. Paired t test and pearson correlation were performed to find the significant difference and correlation between direct LDL-C and calculated LDL-C by different formula.\\n\\n\\n\\nMartin’s formula shows highest correlation with r-value of (0.9979) compared to Friedewald’s (0.9857) and Anandaraja’s (0.9683) r-values. The mean difference was least for Martin’s formula (0.31 ± 3.53) compared to other formulae. Among all the groups, the percentage of error was least for Martin’s formula (0.23%). Martin’s LDL-C shows highest concordance (90.90%) compared to Friedewald’s (79.60%) and Anandaraja’s formulae (82.90%).\\n\\n\\n\\nAmong all the groups, Martin’s formula shows highest correlation, least percentage of error, highest concordance, and least mean differences. At all TG levels, Martin’s formula is the best formula compared to the Friedewald’s formula and Anandaraja’s formula.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":\" 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/jlp-2022-7-20-(1343)\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/jlp-2022-7-20-(1343)","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于成本效益,印度的大多数实验室都采用弗里德瓦尔德公式估算低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)水平。弗里德瓦尔德公式有许多缺点。最近,马丁斯推导出了一种新的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇计算公式。本研究采用不同的公式(弗里德瓦尔德公式、阿南达拉贾公式和马丁公式)计算低密度脂蛋白胆固醇,并比较在不同甘油三酯(TG)浓度范围内直接测量的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇与计算得出的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇。根据 TG 值的不同,研究样本分为四组。第一组:400 mg/dL。马丁公式的相关性最高,r 值为 (0.9979),而弗里德瓦尔德公式的 r 值为 (0.9857),阿南达拉贾公式的 r 值为 (0.9683)。与其他公式相比,马丁公式的平均差异最小(0.31 ± 3.53)。在所有组别中,马丁公式的误差百分比最小(0.23%)。与 Friedewald 公式(79.60%)和 Anandaraja 公式(82.90%)相比,马丁低密度脂蛋白胆固醇公式的一致性最高(90.90%)。在所有 TG 水平上,与弗里德瓦尔德公式和阿南达拉贾公式相比,马丁公式是最好的公式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Martin’s formula is best to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
Due to the cost-effectiveness, most of the laboratories in India estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with the Friedewald’s formula. There were many shortcomings of the Friedewald’s formula. Recently, Martins have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C. The present study was undertaken to calculate LDL-C using various formulae (Friedewald’s formula, Anandaraja’s formula, and Martin’s formula) and to compare directly measured LDL-C with calculated LDL-C at various ranges of triglyceride (TG) concentration. The present study compared LDL-C measured by Martin’s formula, Friedewald’s formula, and Anandaraja’s formula with directly measured LDL In 280 Outpatient fasting samples between the age group of 18 and 50 years. Depending on the TG values, study samples are divided into four groups. Group 1: <200 mg/dL, Group 2: 200–300 mg/dL, Group 3: 300–400 mg/dL, Group 4: >400 mg/dL. This was performed by the Statistical package for social sciences version 16. Paired t test and pearson correlation were performed to find the significant difference and correlation between direct LDL-C and calculated LDL-C by different formula. Martin’s formula shows highest correlation with r-value of (0.9979) compared to Friedewald’s (0.9857) and Anandaraja’s (0.9683) r-values. The mean difference was least for Martin’s formula (0.31 ± 3.53) compared to other formulae. Among all the groups, the percentage of error was least for Martin’s formula (0.23%). Martin’s LDL-C shows highest concordance (90.90%) compared to Friedewald’s (79.60%) and Anandaraja’s formulae (82.90%). Among all the groups, Martin’s formula shows highest correlation, least percentage of error, highest concordance, and least mean differences. At all TG levels, Martin’s formula is the best formula compared to the Friedewald’s formula and Anandaraja’s formula.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信