Comparison of Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL measurement in hyperlipidaemic and normolipidaemic adults

Medine Alpdemir
{"title":"Comparison of Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL measurement in hyperlipidaemic and normolipidaemic adults","authors":"Medine Alpdemir","doi":"10.5937/jomb0-46549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"  \nABSTRACT \nObjective: In our study, we aimed to compare and validate the performance of the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL-C measurement. \nMaterial and Methods: The study was a retrospective investigation which by the Department of Medical Biochemistry of the Ankara Training and Research Hospital between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. Our study evaluated the results of 6297 patients aged 18-99 years who underwent cholesterol panel TC, TG, HDL-C and direct LDL-C in our laboratory.   Estimated LDL-C calculated according to Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae. \nResults: All three formulae showed a stronger positive correlation with d-LDL-C (0.905, 0.897, and 0.886, respectively, for all data, p<0.001). In addition, when we compared the total median difference (1st-3rd quartile) of all formulae, it was it was -0.69 (-1.62-0.39) for Friedewald, 0.034 (-0.74 -1.14) for Martin/Hopkins and -0.40 (-1.19-0.55) for Sampson. According to Passing Bablok regression analyses, the intercept was determined as -0.97 (95% CI = -1.01 to -0.93), 0.41 (95%=0.37 to 0.44) and -0.05 (-0.08 to -0. 03) and slopes were calculated as 1.083 (95% CI = 1.07-1.09), 0.88 (0.88 to 0.89) and 0. 90 (95% = 0.89 to 0.90) for Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins and Sampson, respectively. \nConclusions:  Our findings suggest that Martin/Hopkins formula indicated a better performance than Friedewald and Sampson formulae. We figured out utilizing the Martin/Hopkins formula as a good alternative for estimated LDL-C in Turkish adults. \n ","PeriodicalId":504309,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Biochemistry","volume":"2 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/jomb0-46549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

  ABSTRACT Objective: In our study, we aimed to compare and validate the performance of the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL-C measurement. Material and Methods: The study was a retrospective investigation which by the Department of Medical Biochemistry of the Ankara Training and Research Hospital between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. Our study evaluated the results of 6297 patients aged 18-99 years who underwent cholesterol panel TC, TG, HDL-C and direct LDL-C in our laboratory.   Estimated LDL-C calculated according to Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae. Results: All three formulae showed a stronger positive correlation with d-LDL-C (0.905, 0.897, and 0.886, respectively, for all data, p<0.001). In addition, when we compared the total median difference (1st-3rd quartile) of all formulae, it was it was -0.69 (-1.62-0.39) for Friedewald, 0.034 (-0.74 -1.14) for Martin/Hopkins and -0.40 (-1.19-0.55) for Sampson. According to Passing Bablok regression analyses, the intercept was determined as -0.97 (95% CI = -1.01 to -0.93), 0.41 (95%=0.37 to 0.44) and -0.05 (-0.08 to -0. 03) and slopes were calculated as 1.083 (95% CI = 1.07-1.09), 0.88 (0.88 to 0.89) and 0. 90 (95% = 0.89 to 0.90) for Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins and Sampson, respectively. Conclusions:  Our findings suggest that Martin/Hopkins formula indicated a better performance than Friedewald and Sampson formulae. We figured out utilizing the Martin/Hopkins formula as a good alternative for estimated LDL-C in Turkish adults.  
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
弗里德瓦尔德、马丁/霍普金斯和桑普森公式与直接测量高脂血症和正常脂血症成人低密度脂蛋白的比较
摘要 目的我们的研究旨在比较和验证弗里德瓦尔德、马丁/霍普金斯和桑普森公式与直接测量低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的性能。材料与方法:本研究是安卡拉培训与研究医院医学生物化学系在 2021 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间进行的一项回顾性调查。我们的研究评估了 6297 名 18-99 岁患者的结果,这些患者在我们的实验室接受了胆固醇全套 TC、TG、HDL-C 和直接 LDL-C 测量。 根据 Friedewald、Martin/Hopkins 和 Sampson 公式计算出的估计 LDL-C。结果:所有三种公式都与 d-LDL-C 呈较强的正相关(所有数据分别为 0.905、0.897 和 0.886,P<0.001)。此外,当我们比较所有公式的总中位数差异(第 1-3 个四分位数)时,Friedewald 为-0.69(-1.62-0.39),Martin/Hopkins 为 0.034(-0.74-1.14),Sampson 为-0.40(-1.19-0.55)。根据Passing Bablok回归分析,Friedewald、Martin/Hopkins和Sampson的截距分别为-0.97(95% CI=-1.01至-0.93)、0.41(95%=0.37至0.44)和-0.05(-0.08至-0.03),斜率分别为1.083(95% CI=1.07至1.09)、0.88(0.88至0.89)和0.90(95%=0.89至0.90)。结论: 我们的研究结果表明,马丁/霍普金斯公式比弗里德瓦尔德公式和桑普森公式显示出更好的性能。我们认为马丁/霍普金斯公式是估算土耳其成年人低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的良好替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
. Significance of Plasma TGF-β1 Level Detection in Patients with T2DM with Heart Failure - Effects of Individualized Comprehensive Nutritional Support on Inflammatory Markers, serum amylase (AMS), prealbumin (PA), albumin (ALB), calcium ion (Ca2+) in Patients with Severe Pancreatitis Association between Matrix Metalloproteinase-3 Gene Polymorphism and Susceptibility to Chronic Periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Association between Cerebral Small Vessel Disease and Plasma Levels of LDL Cholesterol and Homocysteine: Implications for Cognitive Function Impact of an air bubble within the syringe on test results obtained with a modern blood gas analyzer
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1