The DOI matches its Crossref record; 623 of the 623 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 56 of the 702 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: Lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk
Open accessAbstract
The Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS).The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these Guidelines are available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
391 Not checked yet · 43 No basis given · 42 Own interpretation · 13 Partly supported · 11 Couldn’t confirm · 10 Own method · 3 Own result · 2 Supported so far · 1 Supported · 1 Mixed support · accuracy not yet measured
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, there is no evidence from randomized trials that therapeutically increasing plasma HDL-C reduces the risk of CV events [63-67].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [63] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s introductory passage says previous trials had not shown that raising HDL cholesterol reduces vascular risk. But its Results report that anacetrapib both raised HDL cholesterol and reduced major coronary events; it also lowered non-HDL cholesterol, and the Discussion says the mechanism of benefit cannot be determined. Thus the paper supports a lack of demonstrated benefit specifically caused by raising HDL, but not the unqualified statement that randomized trials provide no evidence of benefit from an HDL-raising therapy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [64] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that dalcetrapib substantially raised HDL cholesterol but did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. This supports the claim for one randomized trial, but the paper does not establish the broader assertion that no randomized trial provides evidence of reduced risk; its Background says that question remains uncertain. The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Disputedcites [65] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper's discussion reports no cardiovascular-event benefit from raising HDL-C with niacin in its own trial of patients receiving intensive statin therapy. But its introduction and discussion also describe earlier randomized trials in which HDL-raising treatments were associated with fewer cardiovascular events, including VA-HIT. Those passages contradict the categorical claim that there is no such evidence from randomized trials, though they do not establish that the HDL-C increase itself caused the benefit. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked yetcites [66] source
- Partly supportedcites [67] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the discussion of HDL therapies (page unavailable), the paper says that oral drugs that raise HDL-C have not shown clinical benefit when added to statins. That supports the claim for those treatments in statin-treated patients, but not its unqualified statement about all randomized trials of therapeutically increasing HDL-C. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“while the measurement of the carotid intima-media thickness is inferior to CAC score and carotid plaque detection [16,24,25].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [16] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Conclusion (page not available in our copy) show that CAC improved cardiovascular risk discrimination and reclassification more than CIMT in intermediate-risk individuals. The paper does not compare CIMT with carotid plaque detection, so it supports only the CAC part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [24] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The COMMENT section reports that a recent meta-analysis suggested carotid plaque was better than CIMT at predicting coronary events, but it also notes contrary findings for stroke and says this study did not separately analyze plaque. The cited paper does not establish that CIMT is inferior to coronary artery calcium scoring, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked yetcites [25] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In contrast, Mendelian randomization studies do not provide compelling evidence that HDL-C is causally associated with the risk of ASCVD [49,61,62].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [49] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion passage on Mendelian randomization concerns genetically lower LDL-C and cardiovascular outcomes, not whether HDL-C is causally associated with ASCVD risk. Searches for HDL-C and genetic variants found no passage in our copy assessing that claim; the Methods mention non-HDL-C only as an alternative measure in the analysis. No page number is available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.74)
- Partly supportedcites [61] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not specified in our copy) reports that two genetic instruments that raised HDL cholesterol were not associated with myocardial infarction risk, supporting the claim's central point. The study addresses myocardial infarction rather than ASCVD risk broadly, and its Interpretation limits the conclusion to some genetic mechanisms rather than ruling out every causal role for HDL-C. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Could not verifycites [62] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introduction (p. 1934) says that interventions raising HDL-C have not been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, but it does not describe what Mendelian randomization studies found. The References list names Mendelian randomization studies without reporting their conclusions; searches for Mendelian randomization and genetic evidence found no passage assessing whether those studies support a causal association. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Compared with a strategy of treating all patients, the use of CAC score to guide long-term statin therapy has been shown to be cost-effective [27].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [27] source
The Discussion states that CAC-guided statin therapy was cost-effective compared with treating all statin-eligible individuals with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk of at least 5%. It also notes that the differences in costs and quality-adjusted life years were small. No page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Numerous epidemiological studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and RCTs have consistently demonstrated a log-linear relationship between the absolute changes in plasma LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD [34,45-50].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
- Partly supportedcites [45] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (‘Association of individual lipids with coronary artery disease’; page unavailable) reports that epidemiological and genetic evidence links higher LDL cholesterol with higher CAD risk. It does not establish a log-linear relationship involving absolute LDL-C changes or report that randomized controlled trials demonstrate one. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [46] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Scanning for additive associations” (page unavailable), the paper reports that a PCSK9 variant associated with low LDL cholesterol is protective against coronary artery disease. It does not establish a log-linear relationship between absolute LDL-C changes and ASCVD risk, or report consistent findings across epidemiological studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and RCTs. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [47] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion (pages not provided) describe an approximately log-linear relationship for Mendelian-randomization estimates of LDL-C reduction and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. The Discussion also says that epidemiological studies and statin trials show log-linear relationships. The paper addresses CHD, however, while the citing sentence extends the claim to the broader category of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [48] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) links observational LDL-C findings to randomized-trial evidence, and the Results report higher CHD odds per 1 mmol/L genetically instrumented increase in LDL-C. The Discussion says the Mendelian-randomization estimate is similar in magnitude to a statin-trial estimate. The paper does not establish a log-linear relationship across absolute LDL-C changes or address ASCVD risk as broadly as the claim states. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [49] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that, across statin and several established nonstatin trials, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with a similar reduction in the relative risk of major vascular events. The discussion says Mendelian randomization findings support an association between the degree of LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular risk. Our copy does not establish that epidemiological studies demonstrate the claimed log-linear relationship, and the trial findings are qualified by treatment class rather than applying consistently to all interventions. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked yetcites [50] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The inverse association between plasma HDL-C and the risk of ASCVD is among the most consistent and reproducible associations in observational epidemiology [45,60].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [45] source
The Results section states that epidemiological studies consistently associate higher HDL cholesterol with reduced CAD risk. The Discussion likewise describes a clear association between plasma HDL and CAD risk. The claim concerns an observational association, not a causal effect. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked yetcites [60] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As a result, under most circumstances, they provide very similar information about ASCVD risk [45,105-108].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [45] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section, “Association of individual lipids with coronary artery disease” (page unavailable), reports an association between LDL cholesterol and coronary artery disease risk. It does not compare LDL-C with non-HDL-C or ApoB, so it does not support the claim that the three usually provide very similar risk information. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not checked yetcites [105] source
- Partly supportedcites [106] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that non-HDL-C and apoB did not perform vastly better than LDL-C for estimating recurrent-event risk in this study, supporting the claim of broadly similar information. But the study concerns patients with manifest arterial disease, not ASCVD risk under most circumstances; it also reports a stronger association between apoB and myocardial infarction. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [107] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that epidemiologic studies found non-HDL-C at least equivalent to LDL-C and apoB for predicting CVD risk. But the paper does not establish that all three provide very similar ASCVD-risk information under most circumstances: its Results report poor correlations between apoB and LDL-C, and it lacked clinical outcomes to assess its own risk reclassifications. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [108] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It is important to note that direct LDL-C measurements also have limitations, including systematic bias and inaccuracy in patients with dyslipidaemia, especially for high TG levels [88-90].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [88] source
- Partly supportedcites [89] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Trueness and Total Error) report consistent negative bias for several direct LDL-C methods and more discordant results in diseased participants. The Results (Specificity Issues) link higher triglycerides to LDL-C bias, but report no consistent pattern between triglyceride concentration and the frequency of discordant LDL-C results. Thus, the claim's emphasis on inaccuracy especially at high triglyceride levels overstates the finding. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [90] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These limitations suggest caution in interpreting the results of RCTs or even meta-analyses of RCTs in relation to the effect of a single dietary change on ASCVD [130].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [130] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the editorial discussion (pp. 1079–1081), Mozaffarian urges attention to methodological details in any research study, explicitly including clinical trials. But the limitations discussed concern an observational study of trans fats; our copy does not extend that caution specifically to meta-analyses of RCTs assessing a single dietary change and ASCVD. (LLM, conf=0.81)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Regular physical exercise reduces plasma TG levels over and above the effect of weight reduction [151,168,169].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [151] source
- Could not verifycites [168] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (page unavailable) mention physical activity and body-mass index only as variables used in analyses of alcohol consumption. The Results and Discussion passages address alcohol-related cardiovascular outcomes, not whether exercise lowers plasma triglycerides independently of weight reduction. Searches for the exercise–triglyceride claim and for triglycerides, physical activity, and weight reduction found no passage addressing it. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not checked yetcites [169] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“There is also evidence suggesting that lowering of LDL-C beyond the goals that were set in the previous EAS/ESC Guidelines is associated with fewer ASCVD events [34,116,117].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
- Supportedcites [116] source
The Conclusions state that LDL-C levels below the ESC-recommended targets may provide additional clinical benefit. The “LDL-C and CVD” section reports that lower LDL-C levels were associated with lower cardiovascular-event risk. Together, these support the citing sentence’s hedged claim; the copy provides section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked yetcites [117] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“A clinically relevant hypocholesterolaemic effect (up to a 20% reduction) has been observed with RYR preparations providing an o.d. [once daily (omni die)] dose of 5-10 mg monacolin K [145].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [145] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The High density lipoprotein cholesterol and Fig 2 passages discuss alcohol intake, cholesterol markers, and projected coronary-heart-disease risk—not red yeast rice. Searches for red yeast rice, monacolin K, and the stated 5–10 mg dose found no passage addressing the claimed cholesterol reduction. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Available evidence consistently demonstrates a TCand LDL-Clowering effect of β-glucan, a viscous fibre from oat and barley.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [186] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion report effects of high-dose atorvastatin on oxidized phospholipids in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Searches for beta-glucan, oats, barley, and soluble fibre found no passage addressing whether beta-glucan lowers total cholesterol or LDL-C. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The absolute benefit from statin treatment was lower in people in primary prevention, who are typically at lower risk [36,38,214,215].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [36] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Statins section reports a reduction in cardiovascular disease risk with statins, but does not compare absolute benefits in primary- and secondary-prevention populations. Searches for primary prevention and absolute risk reduction found no passage in our copy addressing that comparison; no page number was supplied for the indexed passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not checked yetcites [38] source
- Not checked yetcites [214]
- Could not verifycites [215] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introduction (section 634) says statins reduce cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease. Our copy does not compare statin benefits in primary and secondary prevention or state that primary-prevention patients have a lower absolute benefit; searches for those terms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For cancer, a meta-analysis of IPD from randomized trials has shown that statins do not have any significant effect on cancer, at least over a period of ∼5 years [223].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [223] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cancer rows of the trial-results tables (rendered under Conclusion; page unavailable) classify newly diagnosed cancer as indistinguishable between statin and placebo groups, supporting the finding of no statistically significant effect. The Data collection and analysis section describes a meta-analysis of trial-level adverse-event counts, not individual participant data, and the paper does not establish a cancer-specific follow-up period of approximately five years. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In those without a history of vascular disease, statin therapy reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 9% per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [36] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Statins section reports that statins reduce cardiovascular disease risk by 23% per mmol/L of LDL cholesterol lowered. It does not report a 9% reduction in all-cause mortality or specify that result for people without a history of vascular disease. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In observational studies, TC is negatively associated with haemorrhagic stroke”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
- Not checked yetcites [251] source
- Could not verifycites [252] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s main text (page unavailable) discusses LDL-cholesterol lowering and cardiovascular outcomes in treatment trials, including stroke within composite endpoints. Our copy does not address an observational association between total cholesterol and haemorrhagic stroke; searches for haemorrhagic or hemorrhagic stroke and inverse cholesterol associations found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.73)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“At the top daily dose of 24 g of cholestyramine, 20 g of colestipol, or 4.5 g of colesevelam, a reduction in LDL-C of 18-25% has been observed.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [274] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Lipid Changes section reports LDL-C reductions with evolocumab, not with cholestyramine, colestipol, or colesevelam. Searches for those drugs, their stated doses, and an 18–25% reduction found no passage in our copy addressing the claim; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The magnitude of effect is highly dependent on the baseline lipid levels [305].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [305] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 2 (Additional information; page not available) lists baseline triglyceride levels and treatment-related changes, but does not establish that the magnitude of fibrates’ effects on lipids depends strongly on baseline levels. The COMMENT only suggests that fibrates might have a different effect on pancreatitis risk at higher triglyceride levels. Searches for baseline-dependent lipid or triglyceride reductions found no statement supporting the claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although there have been no placebo-controlled trials in children, observational studies have suggested that early treatment can reduce LDL-C burden, improve endothelial function, substantially attenuate the development of atherosclerosis, and improve coronary outcomes [369-371].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [369] source
- Could not verifycites [370] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Lipoproteins section discusses oral contraceptives and lipid profiles in women; the Animal Studies section discusses atherosclerosis in monkeys. Our copy does not address early treatment or endothelial function in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia (searched those terms and pediatric statin treatment). (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Could not verifycites [371] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The subgroup analyses discuss improved endothelial vascular function in the context of estrogen therapy, while the paper’s findings concern postmenopausal women. Searches for children with familial hypercholesterolaemia and early treatment found no passage addressing whether such treatment improves endothelial function. (LLM, conf=0.76)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although there have been no placebo-controlled trials in children, observational studies have suggested that early treatment can reduce LDL-C burden, improve endothelial function, substantially attenuate the development of atherosclerosis, and improve coronary outcomes [369-371].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [369] source
- Could not verifycites [370] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Clinical Studies section discusses past oral-contraceptive use and coronary outcomes in adult women, while the Animal Studies section discusses contraceptive hormones and atherosclerosis in monkeys. Searches for children with familial hypercholesterolaemia and early lipid-lowering treatment found no passage addressing whether such treatment improves coronary outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Could not verifycites [371] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The subgroup analyses describe coronary outcomes in postmenopausal women receiving estrogen plus progestin, not early treatment in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia. Searches for paediatric familial hypercholesterolaemia treatment and coronary outcomes found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“In the FOURIER study, the relative risk reduction for major vascular events was similar in patients with and without DM; however, given the higher baseline risk in patients with DM, the absolute risk reductions tended to be greater in patients with DM (2.7% absolute decrease in major vascular events over 3 years) [297].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [297] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes a meta-analysis of niacin, fibrates, and CETP inhibitors; the cardiovascular-endpoints section reports outcomes for those treatments. Searches for FOURIER, the 2.7% absolute decrease, and diabetes-specific relative and absolute risk reductions found no passage addressing the claimed FOURIER result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Data from RCTs and meta-analyses indicate that routine early use of high-intensity statin therapy is associated with rapid and sustained clinical benefits [438-442].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [438] source
- Not checked yetcites [439] source
- Partly supportedcites [440] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports rapid benefit from intensive statin therapy in a randomized trial of patients with acute coronary syndromes. But this paper’s own analysis was observational, concerned statin use before TIA onset, and had no dose data; it therefore does not establish benefits from routine early initiation of high-intensity therapy. It also discusses later benefits after TIA or stroke separately, rather than demonstrating that the early benefit was sustained. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked yetcites [441] source
- Partly supportedcites [442] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports cardiovascular benefits over a mean follow-up of 6.1 years, supporting the long-term-benefit portion of the claim. But the Study Design describes 40 mg of pravastatin daily, not high-intensity therapy, and the paper explicitly says enrollment began at least three months after the qualifying event, so its data do not clarify benefits early after an acute event. The cited results therefore do not establish routine early use or rapid clinical benefits. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The trial did not have sufficient power to separately assess the effects on the primary outcome in dialysis and non-dialysis patients.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [222] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Background describes ASCOT-LLA’s statin comparison, and the Statistical analysis passages discuss adverse-event reporting, not the SHARP trial’s primary outcome. Searches for SHARP, dialysis, and insufficient power found no passage addressing separate assessment in dialysis and non-dialysis patients. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The presence of an abdominal aortic aneurysm represents a riskequivalent condition for CAD and is associated with age, male gender, personal history of atherosclerotic CVD, smoking, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia [519]; in contrast, diabetic patients are at decreased risk.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [519] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion passages address C-reactive protein, statin therapy, and acute coronary events, not abdominal aortic aneurysm as a CAD risk-equivalent condition. Searches for abdominal aortic aneurysm and related vascular-risk terms found no passage addressing that claim; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some age categories, the majority of people, especially males, will have estimated 10 year cumulative CV death risks exceeding the 5-10% level, based on age only, even when other CV risk factor levels are relatively low.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No level of LDL-C below which benefit ceases or harm occurs has been defined.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, no specific goals for HDL-C or TG levels have been determined in clinical trials”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Not enough data are available to make a recommendation regarding the optimal n3:n-6 fatty acid ratio [177,178].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, to date no studies have been performed on the subsequent effect on CVD.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“New evidence has confirmed that the key initiating event in atherogenesis is the retention of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-C) and other cholesterol-rich apolipoprotein (Apo) B-containing lipoproteins within the arterial wall [2].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (HDLC), recent studies have indicated that the currently available therapies do not reduce the risk of ASCVD.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“HDL-C can be used to increase the accuracy of the risk evaluation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach produces higher risk figures for younger people because of their longer exposure times.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, there is no longer an 'LDL-C hypothesis', but established facts that increased LDL-C values are causally related to ASCVD, and that lowering LDL particles and other ApoB-containing lipoproteins as much as possible reduces CV events.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, human Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated the critical role of LDL-C, and other cholesterol-rich ApoB-containing lipoproteins, in atherosclerotic plaque formation and related subsequent CV events.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, there is no longer an 'LDL-C hypothesis', but established facts that increased LDL-C values are causally related to ASCVD, and that lowering LDL particles and other ApoB-containing lipoproteins as much as possible reduces CV events.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Total CV risk will also be higher than indicated in the SCORE charts in asymptomatic persons with abnormal markers of subclinical atherosclerotic vascular damage.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so at such levels HDL-C cannot be used as a risk predictor.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: At extremely high HDL-C values above ∼2.3 mmol/L (90 mg/dL), there appears to be an increased risk of ASCVD.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most guidelines use one of these risk assessment systems [6-8].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For those at moderate risk, other factors-including metabolic factors such as increased ApoB, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], triglycerides (TGs), or C-reactive protein; the presence of albuminuria; the presence of atherosclerotic plaque in the carotid or femoral arteries; or the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score-may improve risk classification.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In studies comparing these markers, CAC had the best reclassification ability [14-16].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the risk of experiencing an acute ASCVD event rises rapidly as more ApoBcontaining lipoproteins become retained and the atherosclerotic plaque burden increases.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these studies strongly suggest that the causal effect of TG-rich lipoproteins and their remnants on the risk of ASCVD is determined by the circulating concentration of ApoB-containing particles, rather than by the TG content itself.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In asymptomatic patients at low or moderate risk who would be eligible for statin therapy (see Table 5), assessment of ASCVD with imaging may have an impact on medical treatment, both from the physician's and the patient's points of view.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Therefore, the effect of LDL-C on the risk of ASCVD appears to be determined by both the absolute magnitude and the total duration of exposure to LDL-C [2].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated that long-term exposure to lower LDL-C levels is associated with a much lower risk of CV events as compared with shorter-term exposure to lower LDL-C (as achieved, for example, in randomized trials) [48,52].”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, the clinical benefit of therapies that lower LDL-C by a mechanism that may dramatically modify their composition may not be proportional to the observed absolute reduction in LDL-C, but instead would be expected to be proportional to the absolute change in LDL particle concentration as measured by a reduction in ApoB [2,53].”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because atherosclerotic plaques grow over time as additional ApoBcontaining lipoprotein particles are retained, the size of the total atherosclerotic plaque burden is likely to be determined by both the concentration of circulating LDL-C and other ApoB-containing lipoproteins, and by the total duration of exposure to these lipoproteins.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This graded approach is based on evidence from multiple meta-analyses and individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which show a consistent and graded reduction in ASCVD risk in response to reductions in TC and LDL-C levels (see Recommendations for cardiovascular disease risk estimation below) [31-41].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] source
- Not checked yetcites [32] source
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
- Not checked yetcites [35] source
- Not checked yetcites [36] source
- Not checked yetcites [37] source
- Not checked yetcites [38] source
- Not checked yetcites [39] source
- Not checked yetcites [40] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The remarkable consistency among these studies, in addition to biological and experimental evidence, provides compelling evidence that LDL-C is causally associated with the risk of ASCVD”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Therefore, a person's total atherosclerotic plaque burden is likely to be proportional to the cumulative exposure to these lipoproteins [44].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the plasma TG concentration reflects the concentration of circulating ApoB-containing TG-rich lipoproteins.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“ApoB-containing lipoproteins retained in the arterial wall provoke a complex process that leads to lipid deposition and the initiation of an atheroma [43].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The clinical benefit of lowering LDL-C is determined by the reduction in circulating LDL particles as estimated by ApoB, which is usually mirrored by a reduction of cholesterol carried by those particles [2,53].”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The use of imaging techniques to determine the presence and extent of atherosclerotic vascular damage in low-risk individuals not being considered for statin therapy is not justified due to low prognostic yield, and the associated costs and radiation hazards when measuring CAC score, particularly among low-risk women [29].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, people with higher concentrations of plasma ApoB-containing lipoproteins will retain more particles and accumulate lipids faster, resulting in more rapid growth and the progression of atherosclerotic plaques.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and that lowering LDL-C reduces the risk of ASCVD proportionally to the absolute achieved reduction in LDL-C [2,51].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, calculated LDL-C has been found to underestimate LDL-C at concentrations of TG ≥ 2 mmoL/L (177 mg/dL) [81,82].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Available methods are, to a varying degree, influenced by the Apo (a) isoform [91].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [91] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In general, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and ApoB concentrations are very highly correlated.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In most studies, nonfasting samples display a higher TG level of ∼0.3 mmoL/L (27 mg/dL) [100,101].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [100] source
- Not checked yetcites [101]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, this study [77] and another based on the Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) trial [78] have shown that large absolute changes in Lp(a) may be needed to produce a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of ASCVD events.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because all ApoB-containing lipoproteins-including VLDL, TG-rich remnant particles, and LDL-contain a single ApoB molecule, quantitation of ApoB directly estimates the number of atherogenic particles in plasma.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Equally, at very low levels of LDL-C, calculated LDL-C may be misleading, especially in the presence of high TG [81,84-86].”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent systematic studies comparing fasting and non-fasting samples have suggested that the difference is small for most lipid parameters [85,94-100].”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the analytical performances of ApoB measurement methods are superior to the measurement or calculation of LDL-C and non-HDL-C [79].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [79] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This conflicting evidence appears to have been reconciled by a recent Mendelian randomization study that showed that the causal effect of Lp(a) on the risk of ASCVD is proportional to the absolute change in plasma Lp(a) levels.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [77] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For general risk screening, non-fasting samples seem to have at least the same prognostic value as fasting samples [104].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [104] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, Mendelian randomization studies have consistently demonstrated that lifelong exposure to higher Lp(a) levels is strongly and causally associated with an increased risk of ASCVD [74,75].”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For the general population, calculated LDL-C and direct LDL-C show very strong correlations [80-83].”
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, there is currently no randomized trial or genetic evidence to suggest that raising plasma HDL-C is likely to reduce the risk of ASCVD events.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, and for most individuals, this increment will be of no clinical significance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if energy intake must be kept constant, eating less of one macronutrient implies necessarily eating more of others.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Mediterranean diet is associated with a reduced incidence of CV and other non-communicable diseases in epidemiological studies [134,135]”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Smoking cessation may also contribute to HDL-C elevation, provided that weight gain is prevented [163].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [163] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the replacement of animal fats, including dairy fat, with vegetable sources of fats and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may decrease the risk of CVD [132].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [132] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consistent evidence from epidemiological studies indicates that higher consumption of fruit, non-starchy vegetables, nuts, legumes, fish, vegetable oils, yoghurt, and wholegrains, along with a lower intake of red and processed meats, foods higher in refined carbohydrates, and salt, is associated with a lower incidence of CV events [131].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [131] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“has been proved in RCTs to be effective in reducing CV events in primary and secondary prevention [136].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [136] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The benefits related to LDL-C reduction are not specific for statin therapy [33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Measurement of Lp(a) has been shown to provide clinically significant improved risk reclassification under certain conditions”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“both have proved to be effective in reducing CV risk factors and, possibly, to contribute to ASCVD prevention [133].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [133] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as foods are mixtures of different nutrients and other components, it is not appropriate to attribute the health effects of a food to only one of its components.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“both higher and lower percentages of carbohydrate diets are associated with increased mortality [180,181].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“cohort studies, genetic epidemiological studies, and randomized trials showing that higher LDL-C levels cause ASCVD”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Aerobic physical activity, such as 25-30 km of brisk walking per week (or any equivalent activity), may increase HDL-C levels by 0.08-0.15 mmoL/L (3.1-6 mg/dL) [169].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [169] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“randomized 'metabolic ward' studies showing that high saturated fat intake causes increased LDL-C concentrations”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While the beneficial effects of weight reduction on metabolic and surrogate markers have been demonstrated, the benefits of weight loss on mortality and CV outcome are less clear [175].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“participants allocated to a Mediterranean-type diet, supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts, had a significantly lower (around 30%) incidence of major CV events compared with those who were on a low-fat diet [137].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [137] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, under certain circumstances-including among people with elevated TG levels, DM, obesity, or very low achieved LDL-C levels-the calculated or directly measured LDL-C level may underestimate both the total concentration of cholesterol carried by LDL and, more importantly, underestimate the total concentration of ApoB-containing lipoproteins, thus underestimating the risk of ASCVD.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is considerable individual variability in the LDL-C response to dietary and drug treatments [31]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Alcohol intake has a major impact on TG levels, particularly in individuals with HTG [153,170].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [153] source
- Not checked yetcites [170]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of the replacement (for instance, unsaturated fat vs. highly refined grains) can influence the effect observed, significantly modifying the impact on health of the nutrient replaced.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Sucrose, a disaccharide containing glucose and fructose, represents an important source of fructose in the diet [159,173,174].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“body weight reduction, even if modest (5-10% of basal body weight), improves lipid abnormalities and favourably affects the other CV risk factors often present in dyslipidaemic individuals [148].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the greater the absolute LDL-C reduction, the greater the CV risk reduction [35,36,50,115].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The diet recommended to the general population, and particularly to people at increased CV risk, may also be able to modify plasma TG and HDL-C levels (Table 9).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Studies show that policosanol from sugarcane, rice or wheat germ has no significant effect on LDL-C, HDL-C, TG, ApoB, Lp(a), homocysteine, high-sensitivity Creactive protein, fibrinogen, or blood coagulation factor levels [190].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [190] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There was no increased risk for any non-CV cause of death, including cancer, in those allocated statins.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Notably, there is considerable interindividual variation in LDL-C reduction with the same dose of drug [31].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The comparative evaluation of berberine and lifestyle intervention or placebo indicated that in the berberine group, LDL-C and plasma TG levels were more effectively reduced than in the control group.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [191] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Statins usually reduce TG levels by 10-20% from baseline values [199].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [199] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the dosage needed to achieve a clinically relevant reduction in levels of LDL-C of 3-5% varies from 3 to 10 g per day according to the specific type of fibre [187].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [187] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The relative benefits were half as large in the first year as compared with subsequent years.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since overweight, obesity, and-in particular-abdominal adiposity often contribute to dyslipidaemia”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In the only available RCT in patients with ASCVD, a partially purified extract of RYR reduced recurrent events by 45% [146].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [146] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“α-Linolenic acid is less effective at altering TG levels [156,193].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, given the marked statin-mediated decrement in atherogenic ApoB-containing lipoproteins, the extent to which the very modest effect on HDL-C levels might contribute to the overall observed reductions in CV risk consistently observed in statin intervention trials cannot reliably be disentangled.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hypocholesterolaemic effects of RYR are related to a statin-like mechanism-inhibition of hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMGCoA) reductase-of monacolins, which represent the bioactive ingredient.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144]
- Not checked yetcites [185] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, a significantly lower risk of ischaemic events, including CV death, was observed in patients with elevated TG levels despite the use of statins treated with 2 g of icosapent ethyl b.i.d. [twice a day] [194].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [194] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the CTT meta-analysis of treatment in people with a low-risk of vascular disease [36], the relative risk reduction of major vascular events per mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was at least as large in low-risk individuals (i.e. in primary prevention).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A minor, not clinically relevant elevation of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) has also been observed.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [232] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Several studies have shown a considerable LDL-C-lowering effect of alternative dosing, such as every other day or twice a week, with atorvastatin or rosuvastatin [242].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [242] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall, the absolute reduction in the risk of CVD in high-risk patients clearly outweighs the possible adverse effects of a small increase in the incidence of diabetes [233].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [233] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Patients with mild ALT elevation due to steatosis have been studied during statin treatment and there is no indication that statins cause any worsening of liver disease [244-246].”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, in blinded randomized trials of statins vs. placebo there is no, or only a slightly, increased frequency of muscle symptoms in statin-allocated groups [239,240].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, in part because individuals in observational studies are not blind to the treatment they are receiving, such studies are unreliable when used to assess the adverse effects of statins [233].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [233] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is no clear evidence that statins have a clinically significant beneficial or adverse effect on renal function [253].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [253] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Statins are not effective in a few specific groups, notably those with heart failure (HF) or patients receiving haemodialysis [214,218-222].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Note, however, that the overall benefit on other stroke subtypes greatly outweighs this small (and uncertain) hazard [34,36].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Progression to liver failure is exceedingly rare, therefore routine monitoring of ALT during statin treatment is no longer recommended [243].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [243] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The number needed to cause one case of diabetes has been estimated as 255 over 4 years of statin treatment [247].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [247] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in the CTT meta-analysis, there was a 21% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5-41%; P =0.01] relative increase per mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol in haemorrhagic stroke [34,251,252].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, neurocognitive functions were extensively investigated in the Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects (EBBINGHAUS) study [231] and no excess risk was observed among patients on a statin regimen randomized to a PCSK9 mAb.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [231] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy reduces LDL-C levels by an additional 21-27% compared with placebo in patients with hypercholesterolaemia with or without established CHD.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [263] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, a new class of drugs, PCSK9 inhibitors, has become available that targets a protein (PCSK9) involved in the control of the LDLR [280].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [280] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In both the SEAS and SHARP trials, a reduction in CV events was demonstrated in the simvastatin-ezetimibe arm vs. placebo [266,267].”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In clinical trials, alirocumab and evolocumab-either alone or in combination with statins, and/or other lipid-lowering therapies-have been shown to significantly reduce LDL-C levels on average by 60%, depending on dose.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [283] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The average LDL-C during the study was 1.8 mmoL/L (70 mg/dL) in the simvastatin group and 1.4 mmoL/L (55 mg/dL) in patients taking ezetimibe plus simvastatin.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The beneficial effect of ezetimibe is also supported by genetic studies of mutations in NPC1L1; naturally occurring mutations that inactivate the protein were found to be associated with reduced plasma LDL-C and reduced risk for CAD [55,269,270].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Colesevelam can also reduce glucose levels in hyperglycaemic patients [275].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [275] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Also, ischaemic stroke was reduced by 21% in this trial ( P =0.008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Life-threatening liver failure with ezetimibe as monotherapy or in combination with statins is extremely rare.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [261] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy does not appear to increase the incidence of elevated CK levels beyond what is noted with statin treatment alone [261].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [261] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (most commonly flatulence, constipation, dyspepsia, and nausea) are often present with these drugs, even at low doses, which limits their practical use.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [279] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In clinical trials, bile acid sequestrants have contributed greatly to the demonstration of the efficacy of LDL-C lowering in reducing CV events in hypercholesterolaemic people, with a benefit proportional to the degree of LDL-C lowering.”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is no or very little increased risk for myopathy when combining statins with other fibrates, such as fenofibrate, bezafibrate, or ciprofibrate [259,260].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Co-administration of ezetimibe with PCSK9 inhibitors also results in an additional effect [265].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [265] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Co-administration of ezetimibe and bile acid sequestrants (colesevelam, colestipol, or cholestyramine) has been reported to result in an additional reduction of LDL-C levels by 10-20% when compared with the stable bile acid sequestrant regimen alone [264].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [264] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Among patients in whom statins cannot be prescribed, PCSK9 inhibition reduced LDL-C when administered in combination with ezetimibe [283].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [283] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Among the most frequently reported side effects are itching at the site of injection and flu-like symptoms [292].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [292] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The potential for interaction with orally absorbed drugs is absent, as they will not interfere with pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the FOURIER trial [119], 27 564 patients with atherosclerotic CVD, and LDL-C levels of 1.8 mmoL/L (70 mg/dL) or higher who were receiving statin therapy, were randomly assigned to receive evolocumab or placebo.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
plainn = 27,564- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In an open-label, single-arm titration study evaluating lomitapide as adjunct therapy to statins, with or without apheresis and a lowfat diet [301], LDL-C was reduced by 50% from baseline at 26 weeks and by 44% at 56 weeks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [301] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“After a median follow-up of 2.2 years, evolocumab treatment significantly reduced the risk of the primary endpoint (composite of CV death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization) by 15% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Reactions at the injection site are the most common adverse effects observed in patients treated with mipomersen [304].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [304] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“7 year data from the IMPROVE-IT study have shown that prolonged low LDL-C concentrations are not associated with any clear adverse effects [299].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [299] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the HHS reported a significant reduction in CVD outcomes with gemfibrozil, neither the FIELD nor the ACCORD studies involving fenofibrate showed a reduction in total CVD outcomes.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In some studies, an increase of patient-reported neurocognitive effects has been described [293].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [293] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These highly efficacious LDL-lowering agents also lower TG levels, and increase those of HDL-C and ApoA-I as a function of the dosing regimen.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Early preliminary data from phase III trials suggests a reduction of CV events in line with the LDL-C reduction achieved [286,290,291].”
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Treated patients have shown a higher increase of liver fat from baseline compared with patients randomized to placebo [303].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [303] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Lomitapide was also shown to decrease the frequency of apheresis in HoFH patients.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both the HDL-raising and TG-lowering effects of fibrates have been reported to be markedly less (∼5 and ∼20%, respectively) in long-term intervention trials in people with T2DM but without elevated levels of TGs [306,307].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The relative benefit ranged from 15 to 20% reductions in the risk of the primary endpoints.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To date, no signal has emerged from RCTs [295-297].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In CV outcome trials of fibrates, the risk reduction appeared to be proportional to the degree of non-HDL-C lowering [50].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mendelian randomization studies have also suggested that PCSK9 inhibition may increase the risk of DM with an LDL-C-related effect, as apparently occurs for statins [294].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [294] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Allocation to evolocumab reduced median LDL-C from 2.38 mmoL/L (92 mg/dL) at baseline to a mean of 0.78 mmoL/L (30 mg/dL) at 48 weeks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, the EpanoVa fOr Lowering Very high triglyceridEs II (EVOLVE II) trial confirmed the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids in lowering serum TGs [327].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [327] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Data from meta-analyses suggest that a reduction of calculated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) does not reflect any adverse effects on kidney function [315].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [315] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Fibrates are associated with a slightly increased risk of pancreatitis [321].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [321] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, a new selective PPAR-α modulator (pemafibrate) has been reported to have marked efficacy in reducing TRLs [317].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [317] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The antithrombotic effects may increase the propensity for bleeding, especially when given in addition to aspirin/clopidogrel.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids in lowering serum TGs has also been reported in meta-analyses [157].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [157] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As fenofibrate does not share the same pharmacokinetic pathways as gemfibrozil, the risk of myopathy is much less with this combination therapy [319].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [319] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Decreases in the rates of nonfatal MI were reported, although often as a result of post hoc analyses.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only one study, ACCORD, has analysed the effect of a fibrate as an add-on treatment to a statin.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Use of high doses (2 g b.i.d.) of EPA as compared with placebo (mineral oil) resulted in a ∼25% relative risk reduction ( P < 0.001) in major adverse CV events (MACE).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [195] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“No overall benefit was reported in two recent meta-analyses [312,313].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [312]
- Not checked yetcites [313] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The LEADER trial included male participants with lower-extremity arterial disease and failed to show that bezafibrate could lead to a clinically important reduction in CVD combined endpoints.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the overall efficacy of fibrates on CVD outcomes is much less robust than that of statins.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, the A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes (ASCEND) trial [329], which randomly assigned 15 480 patients with DM but without atherosclerotic CV disease to n-3 fatty acids or placebo, showed no significant difference in the risk of serious vascular events after a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (relative risk 1.00, 95% Cl 0.91-1.09).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [329] source
plainn = 15,480- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Three recent studies in people with high TGs using EPA reported a significant reduction in serum TG levels of up to 45% in a dose-dependent manner [324-326].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gemfibrozil inhibits the metabolism of statins via the glucuronidation pathway, which leads to marked increases in plasma concentrations of statins [320].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [320] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The effect was most evident in people with elevated TG/low HDL-C levels.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It showed that supplementation with either n-3 fatty acids at a dose of 1 g/day, or vitamin D3 at a dose of 2000 IU/day, was not effective for primary prevention of CV or cancer events among healthy middle-aged men and women over 5 years of follow-up [333].”
- Also stated in: § 8.13. Strategies to control plasma triglycerides · p. 30 · plain
“In addition, the VITAL trial showed that n-3 fatty acids at the lower dose of 1 g/day were not effective for primary prevention of CV or cancer events among healthy middle-aged men and women over 5 years of follow-up [333].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [333] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 8.13. Strategies to control plasma triglycerides · p. 30 · plain
In the paper
“The presence of cholesterol remnants characteristic of familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia can be reliably predicted on the basis of plasma levels of cholesterol, TGs, and ApoB [376].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [376] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis of 10 trials included people treated with various agents that reduce serum TGs (fibrates, niacin, and n-3 PUFAs) and reported a 12% reduction in CV outcomes [354].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [354] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Results from studies of an antisense oligonucleotide in patients with normal Lp(a) values as well as in patients with elevated Lp (a) concentrations have shown a reduction of > 90% [352].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [352] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The magnitude of the relative risk reduction appeared to be consistent with the magnitude of LDL-C- or non-HDL-C-level lowering [337].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [337] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although CVD risk is increased when fasting TGs are > 1.7 mmoL/L (>150 mg/dL) [56]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the combination of ApoB > 120 mg/dL and TGs > 1.5 mmoL/ L (> 133 mg/dL) with a family history of premature CVD can be used to identify people who most probably have FCH [360].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [360] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that a considerable proportion of patients with FH have either a polygenic cause of the disease or that other genes, yet to be identified, are involved.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although there have been no placebo-controlled trials in children, observational studies have suggested that early treatment can reduce LDL-C burden, improve endothelial function, substantially attenuate the development of atherosclerosis, and improve coronary outcomes [369-371].”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Evinacumab has been shown to decrease TGs, LDL-C, and Lp(a) levels in HoFH patients [344].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [344] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Bempedoic acid is a novel, first-in-class, oral small molecule that inhibits cholesterol synthesis by inhibiting the action of ATP citrate lyase, a cytosolic enzyme upstream of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutarylcoenzyme A reductase [340].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [340] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, the REDUCE-IT trial [194] demonstrated that in statin-treated patients with high CV risk with fasting TG levels between 135 and 499 mg/dL (1.52-1.63 mmoL/L), high-dose icosapent ethyl, a highly purified and stable EPA (2 g) taken b.i.d., significantly reduced the risk of ischaemic events, including CV death, by about one-quarter over a median follow-up of 4.9 years.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [194] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two RCTs have reported a beneficial effect on clinical endpoints in ASCVD patients without FH [119,120].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although there have been no placebo-controlled trials in children, observational studies have suggested that early treatment can reduce LDL-C burden, improve endothelial function, substantially attenuate the development of atherosclerosis, and improve coronary outcomes [369-371].”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, without some coincidental cause of dyslipidaemia such as dyslipidaemia associated with HTG, DM, obesity, or hypothyroidism [373-375], ApoE2 homozygosity does not generally cause familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia.”
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nicotinic acid primarily raises HDL-C and ApoA1 by stimulating ApoA1 production in the liver [335].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [335] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moderate elevation of TG levels (between 2.0 and 10.0 mmoL/L) is caused by the polygenic effect of multiple genes influencing both VLDL production and removal.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Anacetrapib reduced major coronary events by 9% over a median of 4.1 years [64].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because each 1.0 mmoL/L absolute reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is associated with a 20% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events, larger absolute reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lead to larger proportional reductions in risk.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in most studies, the frequency of detectable mutations in patients with a clinically definite or probable HeFH is between 60 and 80%.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In the IMPROVE-IT study [33], the relative benefit of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin was similar in women and men [33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the acute setting, plasmapheresis is able to rapidly lower TG levels [384].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [384] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Importantly, DM confers excess mortality risk following ACS despite modern therapies”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [409] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Trials specifically performed in people with T2DM, as well as subsets of individuals with DM in major statin trials, have consistently demonstrated significant benefits of statin therapy on CVD events in people with T2DM [418].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [418] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“whereas loss-of-function mutations are associated with a favourable lipid profile with low TG levels [380].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [380] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A gain-of-function mutation in apoC3 that leads to high ApoC-III levels can also cause severe HTG by inhibiting the activity of LPL”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [380] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the available evidence from trials indicates that statin therapy produces significant reductions in major vascular events irrespective of age.”
hedgeddirectn = 854- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recent data from a prospective cohort study reported that the risk of acute pancreatitis increased significantly over the quartiles of serum TGs”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [383] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“High ApoC-III concentrations prevent the clearance of both TRLs and remnants, resulting in prolonged residence times of these particles in the circulation [413,414].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The use of statin therapy declines with increasing age, reflecting differences in both prescription and compliance [395,396].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several outcome trials assessing the effects of adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to high-intensity statin therapy have now been reported, with similar proportional reductions in major vascular events in women and men [120,286,290].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis of observational studies has shown that higher TC is associated with increased CAD mortality at all ages [62,394].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Oestrogen replacement therapy, despite some favourable effects on lipid profiles, has not been demonstrated to reduce CV risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [392] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Statin therapy reduces the 5 year incidence of major CVD events by 23% per 1 mmoL/L reduction in LDL-C, regardless of the initial LDL-C level or other baseline characteristics based on metaanalysis [418].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [418] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The increase in large VLDL particles in T2DM initiates a sequence of events that generates atherogenic remnants, small dense LDL, and small TG-rich dense HDL particles [411].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [411] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This trend is even more prominent among older patients who do not have evidence of occlusive vascular disease [396].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [396] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall, statin therapy produced a 21% relative reduction in major vascular events (relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.81) per 1.0 mmoL/L reduction in LDL-C”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [217] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It may be better revealed by non-HDL-C levels [415].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [415] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“but an analysis of the FIELD study showed consistent CV event reduction in both women and men [389].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [389] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall, 46 675 (27%) of 174 149 participants were women, and after adjustment for non-gender differences, the proportional reductions per mmol/L reduction in LDL-C in major vascular events, major coronary events, coronary revascularization, and stroke were similar in women and men [35].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Notably, ApoC-III levels are increased in people with T2DM [412].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [412] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the ACCORD lipid study, there was no evidence that fenofibrate added to the effects of simvastatin in patients with T2DM [306]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [306] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Currently prescribed third-generation, low-dose oestrogen-progestin oral contraceptives do not appear to increase adverse coronary events [390]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [390] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The benefit was even more pronounced (46% relative risk reduction) in a post hoc analysis including 865 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients undergoing reperfusion by primary PCI [443].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [443] source
plaindirectn = 865- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The mAb PCSK9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab lower LDLC levels by ∼60% and, when added to statin therapy, decrease the risk of major vascular events [119].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall, available data indicate that diabetic patients with atherogenic dyslipidaemia may derive clinical benefits from TG-lowering therapy as an add-on to statin treatment [354].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [354] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a post hoc analysis of the FIELD study, fenofibrate reduced CVD events by 27% in those with elevated TGs [∼2.3 mmoL/L (200 mg/dL)] and increased HDL-C levels (NNT = 23) [416].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [416] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, post-trial follow-up of the ACCORD lipid trial participants reported the beneficial effect of fenofibrate in people with HTG and low HDL-C levels at baseline [421].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [421] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The ACCORD trial confirmed the following: patients who had both TG levels in the higher third [∼2.3 mmoL/L (200 mg/dL)] and an HDL-C level in the lower third [≤0.4 mmoL/L (≤34 mg/dL)], representing 17% of all participants, appeared to benefit from the addition of fenofibrate to simvastatin [306].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [306] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“T1DM is associated with high CVD risk, in particular in patients with microalbuminuria and renal disease [427].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [427] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the FOURIER study, the relative risk reduction for major vascular events was similar in patients with and without DM; however, given the higher baseline risk in patients with DM, the absolute risk reductions tended to be greater in patients with DM (2.7% absolute decrease in major vascular events over 3 years) [297].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [297] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ezetimibe lowers LDL-C by ∼24% and, when added to statin therapy, decreases the risk of major vascular events [33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the IMPROVE-IT trial, the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin therapy provided an additional benefit (6.4% relative risk reduction in the composite clinical endpoint) to post-ACS patients [33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a pre-specified analysis, a significant 28% relative risk reduction in MACE was observed among patients who underwent PCI (65% of all patients).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [443] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Of note, the achieved LDL-C in the evolocumab arm was 0.8 mmoL/L.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [297] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among 15 480 people randomized to omega-3 fatty acid supplements vs. placebo over a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, there was no significant effect (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87-1.08) on serious vascular events [nonfatal MI, non-fatal stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or vascular death] [329,424-426].”
What the sources say
plainn = 15,480- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recent studies have suggested an increased incidence of DM in patients treated with statins [247].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [247] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similar benefits were seen in patients with T1DM and T2DM.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [418] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The mAb PCSK9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab lower LDLC levels by ∼60% and, when added to statin therapy, decrease the risk of major vascular events [119].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The subset of patients with DM in IMPROVE-IT had, as expected, a higher rate of major vascular events than patients without DM (46 vs. 31% 7 year Kaplan-Meier rate in the placebo arm).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [299] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ezetimibe lowers LDL-C by ∼24% and, when added to statin therapy, decreases the risk of major vascular events [33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The same benefits were also recently demonstrated for diabetic patients after ACS in the ODYSSEY trial [420].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [420] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In CV outcome trials of fibrates, the risk reduction has appeared to simply be proportional to the degree of nonHDL-C lowering [50].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ezetimibe appeared particularly efficacious in patients with DM, with a relative risk reduction of 15% (95% CI 6-22%) and an absolute risk reduction of 5.5% [299].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [299] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The authors found no significant treatment benefit in the overall study population.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [443] source
plainn = 4,191- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Treatment with n-3 PUFAs 1 g o.d. may confer a small benefit in patients with chronic HF, as shown by a significant 9% relative risk reduction for mortality in the GISSI-HF RCT [475].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [475] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the recent PCSK9 clinical outcomes trials, FOURIER [119] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [120], PCSK9 inhibition in patients with atherosclerotic CVD or after an ACS did not reduce the risk of HF hospitalization.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Three modestly sized trials [479-481] and one large randomized trial (SEAS, which included 1873 patients treated with simvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or placebo) [266] failed to show a reduction in the clinical progression of aortic stenosis in patients with mild-to-moderate native valve aortic stenosis.”
What the sources say
plainn = 1,873- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“No serious side effects or safety concerns were reported in these two large trials.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a meta-analysis of 13 randomized studies including 3341 patients who were planned to undergo PCI, pre-treatment with a high-dose statin (statin-naïve patients, 11 studies) or a high-dose statin loading dose reduced the risk of MACE (death, MI, or target vessel revascularization) by 44% both for peri-procedural MI and MACE at 30 days [454].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [454] source
plaindirectn = 3,341- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A subanalysis of the FOURIER trial showed that patients who achieved the lowest LDL-C values under PCSK9 treatment also had the lowest risk of future MACE [451].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [451] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Results were consistent in the subgroup of patients with a history of MI (81% of all patients) [119,450].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, this has not been confirmed in RCTs [266,479-481], or in meta-analyses of observational and randomized trials [482,483].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis of available RCTs showed no reduction in mortality, MI, or major vascular events associated with n-3 PUFAs, including the subgroup of patients with known CAD [453].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [453] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Patients at higher atherothrombotic risk [as assessed by the TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) risk score for secondary prevention] benefitted the most from the addition of ezetimibe [448].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [448] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, pre-treatment with a statin has also been shown to reduce the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury after coronary angiography or intervention [458].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [458] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The CETP inhibitors dalcetrapib (in > 30 000 patients with recent ACS [65]) and evacetrapib (in > 12 000 high-risk patients [63]) were investigated in 2012 and 2017, respectively. Neither clinical study was able to show any clinical benefit associated with CETP inhibitors [65].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One of the studies that was included in the meta-analysis showed an improvement in coronary flow when primary PCI was used for the treatment of STEMI [455].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [455] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Life-long high levels of LDL-C [476] and Lp(a) [477] have been associated with incident aortic valve stenosis and aortic valve calcification in genetic Mendelian randomization studies.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In all but one study, PCI was performed in the setting of stable angina or in a non-emergency setting in non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [454] source
plainn = 3,341- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the FOURIER trial, which included 27 564 patients with atherosclerotic CV disease, the addition of evolocumab to statin therapy (69% high-intensity therapy) resulted in a 15% relative risk reduction of the composite primary endpoint throughout a 2.2 year follow-up.”
plaindirectn = 27,564- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Regarding the timing of PCSK9 inhibitor treatment initiation, post hoc analyses from the FOURIER trial have shown that the closer to the event this is done, the better.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Observational studies have suggested possible beneficial effects of intensive lipid lowering in slowing the progression of native valve aortic stenosis [478].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [478] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Statin pre-treatment at TIA onset was associated with reduced recurrent early stroke risk in patients with carotid stenosis in a pooled data analysis, supporting as-early-aspossible initiation of statins after stroke [460-462].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The clinical effectiveness of statins in renal transplant patients is uncertain owing to a lack of randomized trials in this population.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, statin therapy was associated with improved outcomes in a small observational study [486].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [486] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the SHARP study [222], simvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy reduced the risk for major atherosclerotic events (coronary death, MI, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any revascularization) compared with placebo in persons with CKD stage 3A-5.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [222] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“PAD is a common manifestation of atherosclerosis and such patients are at elevated risk of coronary events, with PAD representing an independent risk factor for MI and CV death [510,511].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This diminution in relative risk reduction as GFR declines implies that, at least in non-dialysis patients, more intensive LDL-lowering regimens are required to achieve the same benefit.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [214]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Immunosuppressive drug regimens may have adverse effects on lipid metabolism leading to increases in TC, VLDL, and TGs, and in the size and density of LDL particles.”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“PAD is a common manifestation of atherosclerosis and such patients are at elevated risk of coronary events, with PAD representing an independent risk factor for MI and CV death [510,511].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the adult population, decreasing GFR is associated with increased CVD risk, independent of other CV risk factors [489-492].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the Die Deutsche Diabetes Dialyse Studie (4D) trial, which involved 1200 patients with diabetes on haemodialysis, atorvastatin had no significant effect on risk of CVD [220].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [220] source
plainn = 1,200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These effects vary with different immunosuppressive drugs [497,498,502-506].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a post hoc analysis of the SEAS trial, the efficacy of lipidlowering therapy in impeding the progression of aortic stenosis increased with higher pre-treatment LDL-C levels and lower peak aortic jet velocity (i.e. milder stenosis at baseline) [484].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [484] source
plaindirectn = 1,873- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the CTT meta-analysis makes clear that the goal-as in patients without CKD-should be to achieve the largest possible absolute reduction in LDL-C safely.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [214]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Patients with CKD and established CVD have a much higher mortality rate compared with patients with CVD and normal renal function [493].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [493] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dyslipidaemias are very common in patients who have undergone heart, lung, liver, kidney, or allogenic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and predispose such patients to an increased risk of developing ASCVD and transplant arterial vasculopathy [497-501].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similar results were obtained in the AURORA (A study to evaluate the Use of Rosuvastatin in subjects On Regular haemodialysis: an Assessment of survival and cardiovascular events) trial, which involved 2776 patients on haemodialysis [221].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [221] source
plainn = 2,776- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Aortic valve sclerosis (calcification of the aortic leaflets without significant transvalvular pressure gradient) is associated with an increased risk of CAD even in the absence of increased risk profiles.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [487] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition to statins, PSCK9 inhibitors have also been shown to reduce CV events in PAD patients.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [514]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As for cardiac events, a systematic review of 18 trials including 10 000 patients, with cholesterol levels ranging from normal to elevated, reported that lipid-lowering therapy in people affected by atherosclerosis of the lower limbs was associated with a 20% reduction in total CV events, together with a non-significant 14% reduction of all-cause mortality [512].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [512] source
plaincorrelationaln = 10,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The presence of an abdominal aortic aneurysm represents a riskequivalent condition for CAD and is associated with age, male gender, personal history of atherosclerotic CVD, smoking, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia [519]; in contrast, diabetic patients are at decreased risk.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [519] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are currently no available clinical trials on the reduction of CV risk with lipid-lowering therapy in patients affected by this condition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fenofibrate reduces the progression of diabetic retinopathy [517,518].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Systematic reviews [520], mostly based on retrospective nonrandomized studies, have reported that there is still inconclusive evidence that statin therapy reduces peri-operative CV morbidity and mortality.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [520] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Yet, despite the high CV morbidity and mortality risk, PAD patients are usually inadequately managed compared with CAD patients [511].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [511] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“PAD had larger absolute risk reductions for the primary endpoint (3.5% with PAD and 1.6% without PAD).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [514]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No outcome data are available for this drug”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While there are currently no randomized studies that have assessed whether lipid-lowering treatments reduce the incidence of CV events in patients enrolled on the basis of carotid atherosclerotic disease and without previous CV events, lipid-lowering therapy had reduced stroke in numerous studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As for cardiac events, a systematic review of 18 trials including 10 000 patients, with cholesterol levels ranging from normal to elevated, reported that lipid-lowering therapy in people affected by atherosclerosis of the lower limbs was associated with a 20% reduction in total CV events, together with a non-significant 14% reduction of all-cause mortality [512].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [512] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the Heart Protection Study, the need for non-coronary revascularization was reduced by 16% with statin therapy [513].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [513] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While there are currently no randomized studies that have assessed whether lipid-lowering treatments reduce the incidence of CV events in patients enrolled on the basis of carotid atherosclerotic disease and without previous CV events, lipid-lowering therapy had reduced stroke in numerous studies.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [460] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In an RCT comparing atorvastatin 20 mg with placebo, the composite endpoint of cardiac death, MI, stroke, and unstable angina was significantly reduced in 100 patients undergoing vascular noncardiac surgery, including abdominal aortic aneurysm repair [521].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [521] source
plaindirectn = 100- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the FOURIER trial, evolocumab significantly reduced the primary endpoint in patients with PAD [514].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [514]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 189
- Probably not a substantial claim. 56
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Social deprivation and psychosocial stress set the scene for increased risk [13].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that cardiovascular disease mortality risk associated with unhealthy lifestyles increases with deprivation. It presents psychosocial stress as a possible explanation for disproportionate cardiovascular pathology, not as an established independent risk factor. Page numbers were not supplied in the passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Assessment of carotid or femoral plaque burden with ultrasound has also been demonstrated to be predictive of CV events, comparable to CAC [20-23]”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [20] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The US Assessment of Total Plaque Burden section describes ultrasound measurement of carotid plaque, and the Additional Information section says carotid plaque burden improved cardiovascular risk prediction to a similar degree as CAC. The paper does not assess femoral plaque burden, so it does not support that part of the claim. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [21] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that MRI-measured carotid plaque characteristics were associated with cardiovascular events in another study. But this paper assessed femoral plaque by MRI, not ultrasound; its Results found no association between femoral plaque area and any outcome. Our copy provides no comparison with coronary artery calcium. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [22] source
- Could not verifycites [23] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium in asymptomatic subjects’ section says CAC predicts cardiovascular events, but it does not assess ultrasound-measured carotid or femoral plaque burden or compare its predictive value with CAC. Searches for carotid and femoral plaque, ultrasound, and comparative prognostic value found no passage addressing that claim; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, several randomized trials have shown that directly infused HDL mimetics increase plasma HDL-C concentrations, but do not reduce the progression of atherosclerosis as measured by intravascular ultrasound [68,69].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [68] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) says that neither CHI-SQUARE nor three earlier HDL-infusion studies demonstrated an IVUS benefit over placebo in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. It reports increased plasma cholesterol after CER-001 infusion, including a transient rise in free cholesterol, but does not establish that the trials increased plasma HDL-C concentrations specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Could not verifycites [69] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages and searches for “directly infused HDL mimetics” and “intravascular ultrasound” found no account of the claimed trials or their results. The Genetics section discusses the absence of randomized Lp(a)-lowering trials, a different intervention; it does not establish or contradict the HDL-mimetic claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These effects are dose-dependent; with a habitual fructose consumption between 15 and 20% of total energy intake, plasma TG increases by as much as 30-40%.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [159] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on cardiovascular disease risk factors reports changes after intensive lifestyle intervention, not effects of fructose intake. Searches for habitual fructose consumption, dose dependence, and the claimed 15–20% energy intake and 30–40% triglyceride increase found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked yetcites [173] source
- Not checked yetcites [174] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The cholesterol-lowering effect of soy is generally attributed to its isoflavone and phytoestrogen content, which decreases progressively with the increasing degree of soybean processing.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [187] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) addresses lipoprotein(a), rosuvastatin, and residual cardiovascular risk, not soy. Searches for soy, isoflavones, phytoestrogens, and soybean processing found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed mechanism or the effect of processing. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Could not verifycites [188] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Normalized Vasomotion sections discuss the cholesterol-lowering effects of statins, not soy. Searches for soy, isoflavones, phytoestrogens, and soybean processing found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The mechanism of the TG-lowering effect has not been fully elucidated, but it seems to be partly independent of the LDLR pathway. It may involve the upregulation of VLDL uptake by hepatocytes, as well as a reduction of the production rate of VLDLs; these effects seem to be dependent on pre-treatment VLDL concentrations [200].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [200] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Consistent data have demonstrated the efficacy of statins in preventing CV events and reducing CV mortality in patients with DM, with no evidence of sex differences [430,431].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [430] source
- Partly supportedcites [431] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not available) states that statins improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with established cardiovascular disease. It does not establish the claim specifically for patients with diabetes, address cardiovascular mortality, or report whether effects differ by sex. (LLM, conf=0.85)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The lipid profile in T1DM patients with good glycaemic control is 'supernormal', and is characterized by subnormal TG and LDL-C levels, whereas HDL-C levels are usually within the upper normal range or slightly elevated.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [429] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available indexed passages are repository metadata and PDF links, not text addressing lipid profiles in type 1 diabetes. Searches for “supernormal,” good glycaemic control, triglycerides, LDL-C, and HDL-C found no passage that could verify the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“a reduction in HF hospitalizations [218,471], as well as a small reduction in MI, was observed in a pooled analysis of the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA) and GISSI-HF trials [472].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [218] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages are from the References section and do not report results from a pooled CORONA and GISSI-HF analysis. Further searches for those trials, heart-failure hospitalizations, and myocardial infarction found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed reductions. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Could not verifycites [471] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Statistical analysis; page not provided) and Results (Study characteristics; page not provided) describe a meta-analysis of kidney-function measures and mortality in general-population cohorts. Searches for CORONA, GISSI-HF, heart-failure hospitalizations, and myocardial-infarction reductions found no passage reporting the claimed pooled trial analysis. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Could not verifycites [472] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Background and Endpoints sections describe a registry of patients undergoing PCI, and the Conclusion reports outcomes by renal function; no page numbers are available in our copy. Searches for CORONA, GISSI-HF, rosuvastatin, and a pooled analysis found no passage addressing the claimed reductions in heart-failure hospitalizations or myocardial infarction. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ultimately, more women die from CVD than men.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the multiplier is higher in women and lower in older people.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, people who stop smoking halve their cumulative risk over a relatively short period of time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Risk estimates are lower in women than in men.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SCORE data indicate that the total CVD event risk is about three times higher than the risk of fatal CVD for men, so a SCORE risk of 5% translates into a CVD risk of ∼15% of total (fatal + non-fatal) CVD endpoints”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the available evidence on functional foods so far identified in this field is incomplete; the major gap is an absence of diet-based intervention trials of enough duration to be relevant for the natural history of dyslipidaemia and CVD.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, studies of the clinical safety of these very low achieved LDL-C values have proved reassuring, albeit monitoring for longer periods is required.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, these clinical trials have clearly indicated that the lower the achieved LDL-C values, the lower the risk of future cardiovascular (CV) events, with no lower limit for LDL-C values, or 'J'-curve effect.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several recent placebo-controlled clinical studies have shown that the addition of either ezetimibe or antiproprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to statin therapy provides a further reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, which is directly and positively correlated with the incrementally achieved absolute LDL-C reduction.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The previous ESC/EAS lipid Guidelines were published in August 2016 [1].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While no threshold is universally applicable, the intensity of advice should increase with increasing risk.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other risk estimation systems-using both fatal and non-fatal events-can also be recalibrated, but the process is easier and scientifically more robust for mortality than for total events.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Persons with documented ASCVD, type 1 or type 2 DM (T1DM and T2DM, respectively), very high levels of individual risk factors, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) are generally at very-high or high total CV risk. No risk estimation models are needed for such persons; they all need active management of all risk factors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-invasive imaging techniques can detect the presence, estimate the extent, and evaluate the clinical consequences of atherosclerotic vascular damage.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social deprivation: the origin of many of the causes of CVD. Obesity and central obesity as measured by the body mass index and waist circumference, respectively. Physical inactivity. Psychosocial stress including vital exhaustion.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All risk estimation systems are relatively crude and require attention to qualifying statements.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Guidelines were developed after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their dating.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The longer the treatment and the more effective it is, the greater the reduction in risk, but in general it will not be more than about one-third of the baseline risk.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in these Guidelines, the cut-off point for calling a country 'low CVD risk' is based on WHO data derived from the Global Burden of Disease Study.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites WHO
- Not checked yetcites Global Burden of Disease Study
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“age has been extended from age 65 to 70; (ii) the interaction between age and each of the other risk factors has been incorporated, thus reducing the overestimation of risk in older persons in the original Systematic Coronary Risk Estimation charts; and (iii) the cholesterol band of 8 mmoL/L has been removed”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To convert the risk of fatal cardiovascular disease to risk of total (fatal + non-fatal) cardiovascular disease, multiply by 3 in men and by 4 in women, and slightly less in older people.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk-benefit ratio.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After appropriate revisions the Guidelines are approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relative risks may be unexpectedly high in young persons, even if absolute risk levels are low.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Detection of coronary artery calcification with noncontrast computed tomography (CT) gives a good estimate of the atherosclerotic burden and is strongly associated with CV events [18].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional factors affecting risk can be accommodated in electronic risk estimation systems such as HeartScore (www.heartscore.org).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Task Force received its entire financial support from the ESC and EAS without any involvement from the healthcare industry.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In apparently healthy persons, CVD risk is most frequently the result of multiple, interacting risk factors.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Some factors such as a high HDL-C up to 2.3 mmoL/L (90mg/dL) [17] or a family history of longevity can also be associated with lower risk.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Risk age has been shown to be independent of the CV endpoint used [6,8], can be used in any population regardless of baseline risk or secular changes in mortality, and therefore avoids the need for recalibration.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Use of the low- or the high-risk SCORE charts will depend on the CVD mortality experience in each country.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A particular problem relates to young people with high levels of risk factors; a low absolute risk may conceal a very high relative risk requiring at least intensive lifestyle advice.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Selected experts in the field from both societies undertook a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management of a given condition according to ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) policy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Members of this Task Force were selected by the ESC and EAS, including representation from relevant ESC sub-specialty groups, in order to represent professionals involved with the medical care of patients with this pathology.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, risk is only deferred in women; the risk of a 60-year-old woman is similar to that of a 50-year-old man.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Calibrated country-specific versions are available for many European countries and can be found at http:// www.heartscore.org.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Systematic Coronary Risk Estimation chart is for use in people without overt cardiovascular disease, diabetes (type 1 and 2), chronic kidney disease, familial hypercholesterolaemia, or very high levels of individual risk factors”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ESC Guidelines undergo extensive review by the CPG and external experts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ESC CPG supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement process of these Guidelines.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Risk will be overestimated in countries with decreasing CVD mortality, and underestimated in countries in which mortality is increasing. This is dealt with by recalibration”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The European Guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice (both the 2012 [9] and 2016 [10] versions) recommend the use of the SCORE system because it is based on large, representative European cohort data sets and because it is relatively straightforward to recalibrate for individual countries.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The greater the burden of risk factors, the higher the lifetime risk.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation of particular management options were weighed and graded according to predefined ESC scales, as outlined in the tables below.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For other, apparently healthy people, the use of a risk estimation system such as SCORE, which estimates the 10 year cumulative risk of a first fatal atherosclerotic event, is recommended to estimate total CV risk, since many people have several risk factors that, in combination, may result in high levels of total CV risk.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A risk estimation system such as SCORE can assist in making logical management decisions, and may help to avoid both under- and overtreatment.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While older people benefit from smoking cessation, and control of hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (see section 9.3)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites section 9.3
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis from the US Preventive Services Task Force summarized the available evidence on the value of non-traditional risk factors for risk prediction, and found that, although there are no randomized trials showing that the use of CAC reduces health outcomes, nevertheless it improves both discrimination and reclassification [19].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cut-off points that are used to define high-risk are, in part, both arbitrary and based on the risk levels at which benefit is evident in clinical trials.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total risk approach allows flexibility; if optimal control cannot be achieved with one risk factor, trying harder with the other factors can still reduce risk.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The experts of the writing and reviewing panels provided declaration of interest forms for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk estimates have been produced as charts for high- and low-risk regions in Europe (Fig. 1 and 2) [11].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reasons for retaining a system that estimates fatal as opposed to total fatal + non-fatal events are that nonfatal events are dependent on definition, developments in diagnostic tests, and methods of ascertainment, all of which can vary, resulting in very variable multipliers to convert fatal to total events.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the use of a risk estimation system such as SCORE, which estimates the 10 year cumulative risk of a first fatal atherosclerotic event, is recommended to estimate total CV risk”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therefore, the clinical benefit of therapies that lower LDL-C by reducing LDL particle mass will be proportional to the absolute reduction in LDLC, because-on average-the reduction in LDL-C and LDL particles will be concordant [34,50,54,55].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this evidence must be interpreted with caution because most genetic variants associated with HDL-C are also associated with directionally opposite changes in TGs, LDL-C, or both, thus making estimates of the effect of HDL-C on the risk of ASCVD very difficult using the Mendelian randomization study design.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data are consistent in showing that, since the relative risk reduction is proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the absolute reduction in LDL-C resulting from a particular drug regimen depends only on baseline LDL-C, at any given level of baseline risk the higher the initial LDL-C level the greater the absolute reduction in risk.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, lowering TG with fibrates reduces the risk of CV events by the same amount as LDL-C-lowering therapies when measured per unit change of non-HDL-C [50], suggesting that the effect of plasma TGs on ASCVD is mediated by changes in the concentration of TG-rich lipoproteins as estimated by non-HDL-C.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eventually, the increase of the atherosclerotic plaque burden along with changes in the composition of the plaque reaches a critical point at which disruption of a plaque can result, with the formation of an overlying thrombus that acutely obstructs blood flow resulting in unstable angina, myocardial infarction (MI), or death.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent Mendelian randomization study demonstrated that TG-lowering lipoprotein lipase (LPL) variants and LDL-C-lowering LDL receptor variants had the same effect on the risk of ASCVD per unit change of ApoB, suggesting that all ApoB-containing lipoproteins have the same effect on the risk of CHD [53].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Mendelian randomization studies also suggest that the association between plasma TGs and the risk of CHD may be causal; however, this evidence must be interpreted with caution because nearly all variants associated with TGs are also associated with HDL-C, LDL-C, or Lp(a) [56-59].”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data provide strong support for the concept that LDL particles have both a causal and cumulative effect on the risk of ASCVD.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) showed that 41-57% of individuals who would be eligible for statin therapy had a CAC score of zero and the rate of atherosclerotic CVD events in the 10 year follow-up period was low (1.5-4.9%) [26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Continued exposure to ApoB-containing lipoproteins leads to additional particles being retained over time in the artery wall, and to the growth and progression of atherosclerotic plaques.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While randomized trials evaluating therapies that lower Lp(a) by 20-30% (including niacin and CETP inhibitors) have not provided evidence that lowering Lp(a) reduces the risk of ASCVD beyond that which would be expected from the observed reduction in ApoB-containing lipoproteins, recent data with PCSK9 inhibitors have suggested a possible role for Lp(a) lowering in reducing CV risk [76].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the concentration of Lp(a) is reported as either a molar concentration (nmol/L) or as a mass (mg/dL) by the various assays, and conversion between molar and mass concentrations has been found to be both size- and concentration-dependent [91-93].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Pro-atherogenic effects of Lp(a) have also been attributed to pro-coagulant effects as Lp(a) has a similar structure to plasminogen, and it has pro-inflammatory effects most likely related to the oxidized phospholipid load carried by Lp(a) [71].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measurement of plasma TC is needed to calculate risk using SCORE, while the inclusion of plasma HDL-C level can improve risk estimation using the online SCORE calculator.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Because about 90% of a person's Lp(a) level is inherited, extremely elevated Lp(a) may represent a new inherited lipid disorder that is associated with extremely high lifetime risk of ASCVD and is two-fold more prevalent than HeFH [77].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [77] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Higher plasma Lp(a) concentrations are associated with an increased risk of ASCVD, but it appears to be a much weaker risk factor for most people than LDL-C [72,73].”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, in the Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High-Risk for Vascular Outcomes (ACCELERATE) and Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Anacetrapib Through Lipid Modification (REVEAL) trials, treatment with CETP inhibitors more than doubled HDL-C levels, but did not appear to reduce the risk of ASCVD events beyond”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“In the Effects of Dalcetrapib in Patients with a Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome (dal-OUTCOMES) trial, treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib increased HDL-C without any effect on LDL-C or ApoB, but did not reduce the risk of major CV events [65].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“low intakes of fats and oils increase the risk of inadequate intakes of vitamin E and of essential fatty acids, and may contribute to a reduction of HDL-C [164].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trans fatty acids produced in the partial hydrogenation of vegetable oils account for 80% of total intake.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the intake of trans fatty acids has decreased substantially over the past 10-15 years.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“this approach also leads to the greatest improvement in physical performance and quality of life, and mitigates reductions in muscle and bone mass, particularly in older people [176].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [176] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The lack of concordance between studies is due both to methodological problems (particularly inadequate sample sizes or short study durations) and the difficulties of evaluating the impact of a single dietary factor independently of any other changes in the diet [130].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [130] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Weight reduction increases HDL-C levels; a 0.01 mmoL/L (0.4 mg/ dL) increase is observed for every kilogram decrease in body weight when weight reduction has stabilized.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dietary carbohydrate has a 'neutral' effect on LDL-C, although excessive consumption is represented by untoward effects on plasma TGs and HDL-C levels [164].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dietary fibre (particularly of the soluble type)-which is present in legumes, fruits, vegetables, and wholegrain cereals (e.g. oats and barley)-has a hypocholesterolaemic effect and represents a good dietary substitute for saturated fat to maximize the effects of the diet on LDL-C levels, and to minimize the untoward effects of a high-carbohydrate diet on other lipoproteins [140,179].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Weight reduction improves insulin sensitivity and decreases TG levels.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The detrimental effects of a high-carbohydrate diet on TGs occur mainly when refined carbohydrate-rich foods are consumed, while they are much less prominent if the diet is based largely on fibrerich, low-glycaemic index foods. This applies particularly to people with DM or MetS [171,172].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a meta-analysis [201], elevations in HDL-C levels varied with dose among the respective statins; such elevations ranged from 1 to 10%.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [201] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More potent statins (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and pitavastatin) demonstrate robust lowering of TG levels, especially at high doses and in patients with elevated TGs (HTG), in whom the absolute risk, and therefore the absolute risk reduction, is larger.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [199] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Statins only marginally affect Lp(a) plasma levels. Previous studies have reported either no effect on or an increase of Lp(a) levels after statin treatment [202,203].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, the long-term safety of the regular consumption of these products has not been fully documented and safety issues due to the possible presence of contaminants in some preparations have been raised.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144]
- Not checked yetcites [185] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Total fat and types of fat were not associated with CVD, MI, or CVD mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke [181].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Soy protein has also been indicated as being able to induce a modest LDL-C-lowering effect when replacing animal protein foods. However, this was not confirmed when changes in other dietary components were taken into account [187,188].”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Observational evidence indicates that consumption of fish (at least twice a week) and vegetable foods rich in n-3 fatty acids (α-linoleic acid is present in walnuts, some vegetables, and some seed oils) is associated with lower risk of CV death and stroke, but has no major effects on plasma lipoprotein metabolism [178,192].”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Different commercial preparations of RYR have different concentrations of monacolins, and lower TC and LDL-C levels to variable extents, but the consumer is not able to make that distinction [144,185].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144]
- Not checked yetcites [185] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The degree of LDL-C reduction is dose-dependent and varies between the different statins.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Daily consumption of 2 g of phytosterols can effectively lower TC and LDL-C levels by 7-10% in humans (with a certain degree of heterogeneity among individuals), while it has little or no effect on HDL-C and TG levels [143].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [143] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Phytosterols compete with cholesterol for intestinal absorption and thereby modulate total cholesterol levels.
In the paper
“However, due to the lack of highquality randomized clinical trials, the efficacy of berberine for treating dyslipidaemia needs to be further validated.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [187] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“A fat-modified diet that provides 25-40 g per day of total dietary fibre, including ≥7-13 g of soluble fibre, is well tolerated, effective, and recommended for plasma lipid control”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Foods enriched with these fibres or supplements are well tolerated, effective, and recommended for LDL-C lowering [186].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [186] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The proportional effects (per mmol/L reduction in LDL-C) on major vascular events were similar in all subgroups examined, so the absolute risk reduction was proportional to the absolute baseline risk.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Smoking cessation has clear benefits regarding overall CV risk, and specifically on HDL-C levels [163].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [163] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These effects have been shown in vitro and in experimental systems, but their clinical relevance remains unproven [18,206].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Pharmacological doses of long-chain n-3 fatty acids (2-3 g/day) reduce TG levels by about 30% and also reduce the post-prandial lipaemic response, but a higher dosage may increase LDL-C levels.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“for each 1 mmoL/L reduction in LDL-C, statin/more statin reduced major vascular events (MI, CAD death, or any stroke or coronary revascularization) by ∼22%, major coronary events by 23%, CAD death by 20%, total stroke by 17%, and total mortality by 10% over 5 years.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Poor responses to statin treatment in clinical studies are to some extent caused by poor compliance, but may also be explained by genetic backgrounds [195,196].”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mild elevation of ALT has not been shown to be associated with true hepatotoxicity or changes in liver function.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [243] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mild elevation of ALT occurs in 0.5-2.0% of patients on statin treatment, more commonly with potent statins or high doses.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [243] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other conditions, such as dementia [224], hepatic steatosis [225], venous thromboembolism [226], atrial fibrillation [227,228], and polycystic ovary syndrome [229] have also been studied, and no effect of statins on these conditions has been reliably demonstrated.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They concluded that a nocebo effect (i.e. one caused by negative expectations) may partly explain the higher frequency of SAMS in observational studies compared with in trials.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [238] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current available evidence from meta-analyses suggests that the clinical benefit of statin treatment is largely a class effect, driven by the absolute LDL-C reduction; therefore, the type of statin used should reflect the treatment goals for a given patient.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Patients on statin treatment have been shown to exhibit an increased risk of dysglycaemia and development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Several studies have shown that this is a consistent, dose-related effect [232].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [232] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although statins are generally very well tolerated, they do have some specific adverse effects on muscle, glucose haemostasis, and haemorrhagic stroke. However, there is also widespread misinformation about potential adverse effects, as reviewed recently [232,233].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The suggested effect on Alzheimer's disease was recently reviewed in a Cochrane analysis reporting no conclusive effect from statins [230].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [230] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In rhabdomyolysis, creatine kinase (CK) levels are elevated by ≥ 10 times, and often ≥40 times, the upper limit of normal (ULN) [234].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [234] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The proteinuria induced by statins is of tubular origin, usually transitory, and is believed to be due to reduced tubular reabsorption and not to glomerular dysfunction [254,255].”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This effect is probably related to the mechanism of action of statins, as Mendelian randomization studies have confirmed the increased risk of DM in individuals with HMG-CoA reductase polymorphisms that reduce cholesterol synthesis [250].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [250] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The frequency of rhabdomyolysis has been estimated to represent 1-3 cases/100 000 patient-years [235].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [235] source
hedgedn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the risk is higher with the more potent statins at high doses [248], and is also higher in the elderly, and in the presence of other risk factors for diabetes such as overweight or insulin resistance [249].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Myopathy is the most clinically relevant adverse effect of statins. Among the risk factors for myopathy, it is particularly important that interaction with concomitant drug therapy is considered (see below).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [234] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Statin treatment increases circulating PCSK9 serum levels [282], and thus the best effect of these mAbs has been demonstrated in combination with statins.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [282] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Given the mechanism of action, these drugs are effective at reducing LDL-C in all patients capable of expressing LDLR in the liver. Therefore, this pharmacological approach is effective in the vast majority of patients, including those with HeFH and, albeit to a lower level, those with HoFH with residual LDLR expression. Receptor-deficient HoFH responds poorly to the therapy [285].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [285] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There was no evidence of harm caused by ezetimibe or the further LDL-C reduction.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plainn = 5,314- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Colesevelam is better tolerated and has fewer interactions with other drugs, and can be taken together with statins and several other drugs [279].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [279] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis of RCTs that included over 2700 people showed an 18.5% reduction in LDL-C as compared with placebo [262]. In addition, there was a significant 3% increase in HDL-C, a significant 8% reduction in TGs, and a 13% reduction in TC with ezetimibe as compared with placebo.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [262] source
plaindirectn = 2,700- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bile acid sequestrants have major drug interactions with several commonly prescribed drugs, and must therefore be administered either 4 h before or 1 h after other drugs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [279] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There are no clinically significant effects of age, sex, or race on ezetimibe pharmacokinetics, and no dosage adjustment is necessary in patients with mild hepatic impairment or mild-to-severe renal insufficiency.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [261] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both alirocumab and evolocumab have also been shown to effectively lower LDL-C levels in patients who are at high CV risk, including those with DM [284].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [284] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In clinical trials, the frequency of proteinuria is generally low and, in most cases, is not higher than for placebo [256].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [256] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the study supports the proposition that LDL-C lowering by means other than statins is beneficial and safe.”
plaindirectn = 5,314 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A total of 18 144 patients were randomized to statin or statin plus ezetimibe, and 5314 patients over 7 years experienced a CV event; 170 fewer events (32.7 vs. 34.7%) were recorded in the group taking simvastatin plus ezetimibe ( P =0.016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
plaindirectn = 5,314 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Combination of statins with gemfibrozil enhances the risk of myopathy, and its association with statins must be avoided.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Reduced absorption of fat-soluble vitamins has been reported. Furthermore, these drugs may increase circulating TG levels in certain patients.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [279] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In combination with high-intensity or maximally tolerated statins, alirocumab and evolocumab reduced LDL-C by 46-73% more than placebo, and by 30% more than ezetimibe.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [283] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Elevated concentration or function of this protein in plasma reduces LDLR expression by promoting, upon binding, LDLR lysosomal catabolism and a subsequent increase in plasma LDL concentrations, while lower concentration or function of PCSK9 is related to lower plasma LDL-C levels [281].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“No major effect on HDL-C has been reported, while TGs may increase in some predisposed patients [274].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [274] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since this interaction triggers the intracellular degradation of the LDLR, lower levels of circulating PCSK9 will result in increased expression of LDLRs at the cell surface and therefore in a reduction of circulating LDL-C levels [281].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [281] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In other studies, this combination has also significantly improved reductions in LDL-C levels when compared with doubling of the statin dose (13-20%), and after switching from statin monotherapy to ezetimibe and statin combination therapy (11-15%) [263].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [263] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ezetimibe is rapidly absorbed and extensively metabolized to pharmacologically active ezetimibe glucuronide.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [261] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In clinical studies, ezetimibe in monotherapy at 10 mg/day reduces LDL-C in hypercholesterolaemic patients by 15-22% with relatively high interindividual variation [261].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [261] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fibrates are agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptorα (PPAR-α), acting via transcription factors regulating, among other things, various steps in lipid and lipoprotein metabolism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, the development programme for a third PCSK9 inhibitor, bococizumab, a humanized antibody, was discontinued because of an increase of neutralizing antibodies, which resulted in the attenuation of the LDL-C-lowering effect over time, as well as a higher rate of injection site reactions [300].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [300] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the FOURIER trial, allocation to evolocumab did not reduce the risk of CV mortality (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88-1.25) or allcause mortality.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast to statins, inhibiting PCSK9 with mAbs also reduces Lp(a) plasma levels. Pooled results of phase II trials have shown that treatment leads to an Lp(a) reduction of about 30-40% [288,289].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As a consequence of its mechanism of action, lomitapide has been shown to be associated with increased aminotransferase levels, which most likely reflects the increased fat in the liver, as well as poor GI tolerability [301,302].”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a consequence, fibrates have good efficacy in lowering fasting TG levels, as well as post-prandial TGs and TG-rich lipoprotein (TRL) remnant particles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“After subcutaneous injection, the oligonucleotide is preferentially transported to the liver, where it binds to a specific mRNA preventing the translation of ApoB protein and, consequently, reducing the production of atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins, including LDL and Lp(a) [303].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [303] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While recent investigations have attempted to unravel the mechanism, it remains unclear. However, it appears to be distinct from that of statins, which also enhance LDLR function but do not lower circulating Lp(a) levels in humans.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An analysis of the time to benefit also showed that there was a lower benefit in the first year than in subsequent years, consistent with the effects of statins observed within the CTT metaanalysis [268].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [268]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both studies had relatively short follow-up periods and the evidence from statin trials indicates that the clinical benefits of LDL-lowering may only emerge after about 1 year [51], so these trials may have underestimated the potential impact of longer-term treatment [120,290].”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the EBBINGHAUS trial [231], which was specifically designed to detect neurocognitive function changes, was reassuring, as were the safety reports in both the FOURIER and ODYSSEY trials.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [231] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the HHS reported a significant reduction in CVD outcomes with gemfibrozil, neither the FIELD nor the ACCORD studies involving fenofibrate showed a reduction in total CVD outcomes.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In phase II trials, evolocumab lowered TG levels by 26%, and raised HDL-C and ApoA-I by 9 and 4%, respectively; similar findings have been reported for alirocumab [286,287].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The designs of the trials were similar with regard to the settings of secondary prevention and background therapy; however, the populations enrolled had either stable CHD, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), or stroke; or a recent (median 2.6 months) ACS, respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Results from other meta-analyses suggest reduced major CVD events in patients with high TGs and low HDL-C in fibrate-treated patients, but no decrease in CVD or total mortality [314-316].”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, a fibrate-induced increase in homocysteine may blunt elevation of both HDL-C and ApoA1 levels, and this effect may contribute to the smaller than estimated benefits of fenofibrate in CV outcome parameters [322].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [322] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The risk of myopathy has been reported to be 5.5-fold greater with fibrate monotherapy (mainly with gemfibrozil) compared with a statin, and it varies with different fibrates and statins used in combination.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [319] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The data remain inconclusive and the clinical efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids appears to be related to non-lipid effects [330,331].”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A Cochrane meta-analysis, including 112 059 people from 79 trials, reported no overall effect of omega-3 PUFAs on total mortality (relative risk 0.98, 95% CI 0.90-1.03) or CV events (relative risk 0.99, 95% Cl 0.94-1.04), with only a suggestion that omega-3 fatty acids reduced CHD events (relative risk 0.93, 95% Cl 0.88-0.97) [328].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [328] source
hedgedn = 112,059- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In general, myopathy, liver enzyme elevations, and cholelithiasis represent the most well-known adverse effects associated with fibrate therapy [319].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [319] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Fibrates are generally well tolerated with mild adverse effects, GI disturbances being reported in < 5% of patients, and skin rashes in 2% [319].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [319] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As genetic studies indicate that angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3) deficiency protects against atherosclerotic disease and that this relationship is causal [343]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [343] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recently, data from one study have associated a risk of prostate cancer with high dietary intake of n-3 PUFAs [334].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [334] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The prevalence of HeFH in the population is estimated to be 1/ 200-250, 361 translating to a total number of cases between 14 and 34 million worldwide [362,363].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [361] L.E. Akioyamen, J. Genest, S.D. Shan, R.L. Reel, J.M. Albaum, A. Chu, J.V. Tu, Estimating the prevalence of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ Open 7 (2017) e016461. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0021-9150(1931459-5/sref361) source
- Not checked yetcites [362] source
- Not checked yetcites [363] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Torcetrapib was studied in the Investigation of Lipid Level Management to Understand its Impact in Atherosclerotic Events (ILLUMINATE) trial, which was stopped early due to increased mortality [336].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [336] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Evacetrapib, which raises HDL-C levels by 130% and lowers LDL-C by 37%, was studied in the ACCELERATE trial [63], which was terminated due to futility.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [63] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the liver, nicotinic acid inhibits diacylglycerol acyltransferase2 resulting in decreased secretion of VLDL particles, which is also reflected in reductions of plasma levels of both IDL and LDL particles [335].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [335] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In a phase I and a phase II trial, the small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule inclisiran-which inhibits the synthesis of PCSK9-reduced LDL-C by up to 50% and the reduction was dose-dependent. Reductions in PCSK9 and LDL-C levels were maintained for ≤6 months [338,339].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two large randomized trials with nicotinic acid-one with extended-release niacin [66] and one with niacin plus laropiprant [67]-have shown no beneficial effect and an increased frequency of serious adverse effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“agents that enhance catabolism of TG-rich lipoproteins, such as the antisense oligonucleotide to ApoC-III, and which lead to a concomitant reduction in TGs (∼70%) and a marked elevation in HDL-C (∼40%) in hypertriglyceridemia, are under development [351].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [351]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Volanesorsen reduced plasma TGs by ∼70% and ApoC-III by 80-90% [349].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [349] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Heterozygous carriers of these same gene mutations commonly express moderate elevations of serum TG levels that expose them to increased CVD risk [378].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [378] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“FCH has no monogenic component and is not linked to a single genetic cause, but the phenotype is high LDL-C and/or high TGs [358,359].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The relative reduction in major vascular events was similar, irrespective of age, among patients with pre-existing vascular disease, but appeared smaller among older individuals not known to have vascular disease.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [217] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The good news is that fatal CVD outcomes have declined significantly in both T1DM and T2DM between 1998 and 2014 [400].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [400] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In T2DM, the risk of ASCVD is strongly determined by the presence of target organ damage-including nephropathy (microalbuminuria), neuropathy, or retinopathy-with the risks increasing in relation to the number of conditions present [405].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [405] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent data indicate that DM per se increases CVD risk about two-fold on average, but the risk is subject to wide variation depending on the population and current aggressive prophylactic therapy [401,404].”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The difference in CVD risk between individuals with and without DM has narrowed substantially over the last few decades [401]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [401] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Notably, HTG is the cause of ∼10% of all cases with pancreatitis, and patients can develop pancreatitis even when their TG concentration is 5-10 mmoL/L (440-880 mg/dL).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, since the absolute risk of CAD is higher in older persons, the associated absolute increase in risk for a given increment in TC is larger with increasing age [217].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [217] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hypertension, dyslipidaemia, abdominal obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) commonly coexist with T2DM and further aggravate the risk, which is highest in people with T2DM and multiple cardiometabolic risk factors [406-408].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Elevation of TGs or low HDL-C levels in the fasting or post-prandial state is seen in about one-half of all people with T2DM [416,417], and is also often present in people with abdominal adiposity, insulin resistance or impaired glucose tolerance [413].”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Few randomized trials of statin therapy have reported independently significant CV benefits in women [387,389], chiefly because women have not been adequately represented in statin trials.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using published data, a 2013 Cochrane analysis showed that statin therapy reduced all-cause mortality, vascular events, and revascularizations in primary prevention, and the proportional effects in women were similar to those in men [213].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [213]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These observations should not lessen our attention to the treatment of patients, as the overall benefits in CV event reduction remain and greatly outweigh the increased incidence of DM.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relative risk reduction in major vascular events is proportional to the absolute degree of LDL-C lowering and consistent with the relationship seen for statins.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Consistent with these findings, a metaanalysis of fibrates in the prevention of CVD in 11 590 people with T2DM showed that fibrates significantly reduced the risk of non-fatal MI by 21%, but had no effect on the risk of overall mortality or coronary mortality [422].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [422] source
plaindirectn = 11,590- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ideally, patients should be signed up to cardiac rehabilitation programmes to enhance the control of lipid levels [434] and improve overall survival following ACS [435].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The REDUCE-IT trial examined the effects of icosapent ethyl 2 g b.i.d. on CV events in 8179 high-risk patients with HTG who were taking a statin. Over a median of 4.9 years, there was a significant ( P < 0.001) 25% reduction in the composite primary outcome of CV death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina, corresponding with an absolute reduction of 4.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [194] source
plaindirectn = 8,179- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The clinical benefits achieved by the treatment of high TG and low HDL-C levels (frequently seen with DM) are still a matter of debate, as the effects of fenofibrate therapy on the major outcome (MACE) remained negative in both the FIELD and the ACCORD studies performed in T2DM cohorts [306,307].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These observations have been seen in Mendelian randomization studies and in clinical trials, although the effect appears greatest in patients already at high risk for DM (e.g. those with pre-diabetes).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [247] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Patients do not have to be fasting as this has little impact on LDL-C levels [100].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [100] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis including 18 686 patients with DM demonstrated that a statin-induced reduction of LDL-C yielded a 9% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 21% reduction in the incidence of major CV events per 1.0 mmoL/L (40mg/dL) lower LDL cholesterol [418].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [418] source
boosteddirectn = 18,686- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite the acknowledged clinical benefits of lowering LDLC in patients with ACS [436], attainment of LDL-C target values remains suboptimal in this very high-risk setting [437].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [437] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In relation to diet composition, besides the need to eliminate trans fat, the available evidence supports the reduction of saturated fat intake and its substitution with unsaturated fat, as well as the replacement of a major proportion of refined starchy foods and simple sugars with fibrerich foods like fruits, vegetables, and wholegrains [179].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [179] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is explained by subcutaneous administration of insulin that increases LPL activity in adipose tissue and skeletal muscle, and consequently the turnover rate of VLDL particles [429].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [429] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In RCTs, neither ezetimibe nor the PCSK9 inhibitors have been reported to increase the risk of DM [297].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [297] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In diabetic patients with ACS, intensive statin treatment led to a reduction in all-cause mortality and CV death, and contributed to a reduction in atheroma progression [432].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [432] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Emerging evidence highlights the frequent coexistence of MetS with T1DM, resulting in the so-called double diabetes increasing CVD risk [428].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [428] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cholesterol lowering with statins reduces the incidence of HF in patients with CAD (stable CAD or a history of ACS) without previous HF; this has been shown consistently in RCTs that have compared statin vs. no statin treatment [463,464] as well as more-intensive vs. lessintensive statin therapy [465-468].”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The clinical benefit of adding ezetimibe was consistent across patient subgroups [299,444] and also led to a reduction of total CV events [445], stroke [446], and rehospitalizations [447].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More recently, the REVEAL study investigated anacetrapib in > 30 000 patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease and resulted in a lower incidence of MACE compared with placebo after 4 years, with no safety concerns [64].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] source
plaindirectn = 30,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Secondary prevention therapy with statins reduces the risk of recurrent stroke (by 12% per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol), MI, and vascular death [459,460].”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial, which included 18 924 patients with recent ACS (1-12 months prior to enrolment, median 2.6 months), alirocumab added to statin therapy (89% high-intensity therapy) also resulted in a 15% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint and was associated with a 15% relative reduction in all-cause mortality throughout a 2.8 year follow-up [120].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [120] source
plaindirectn = 18,924- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Statin therapy may yield a small increase in the risk of haemorrhagic stroke, but the evidence regarding this risk is uncertain [34,36,251,252].”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A large-scale meta-analysis of primary and secondary prevention RCTs with statins showed a modest (10%) reduction in first non-fatal HF hospitalizations with statin treatment, with no effect on HF death within the limited RCT period [469].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [469] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Oral supplementation with highly purified n-3 PUFAs reduced mortality in survivors of MI in one study [Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico-Prevenzione (GISSI-P)] but failed to affect clinical outcomes in subsequent trials using contemporary secondary prevention therapies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2007, a large prospective study using the CETP inhibitor torcetrapib failed to show any clinical benefit in more than 15 000 high-risk patients, and was potentially harmful [336].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [336] source
plainn = 15,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There is an increased risk of both atherosclerotic vascular disease and structural heart disease [492].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [492] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, patients with CKD are considered to be at high (stage 3 CKD) or very-high risk (stage 4-5 CKD or on dialysis) of CVD, and there is no need to use risk estimation models in these patients.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although there were no specific safety concerns raised by the 4D, AURORA, or SHARP trials, statins metabolized via CYP3A4 may result in adverse effects due to drug-drug interactions and caution is required.”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although statin-based therapy is clearly effective in mild-to-moderate CKD, a major controversy that remained after the publication of the 4D, AURORA, and SHARP studies was whether statin therapy is effective in more advanced CKD, particularly dialysis patients.”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A systematic review of the benefits and harms of statins in patients with a functioning kidney transplant included 3465 patients, free of CHD, from 22 studies. Although the authors concluded that statins may reduce CV events, they also suggested a need for additional studies [253].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [253] source
hedgedn = 3,465- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“By combining data from the three CKD trials with other trials in the existing database, the CTT investigators found that, even after adjusting for the smaller LDL-C reductions achieved among patients with more advanced CKD and for differences in outcome definitions between dialysis trials, there was a trend towards smaller relative reductions per mmol/L reduction in LDL- C in major atherosclerotic”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [214]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fluvastatin, pravastatin, pitavastatin, and rosuvastatin are metabolized through different CYP enzymes than the others and have less potential for interaction [507].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [507] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“PAD is a common manifestation of atherosclerosis and such patients are at elevated risk of coronary events, with PAD representing an independent risk factor for MI and CV death [510,511].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A systematic review of the benefits and harms of statins in patients with a functioning kidney transplant included 3465 patients, free of CHD, from 22 studies. Although the authors concluded that statins may reduce CV events, they also suggested a need for additional studies [253].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [253] source
hedgedconditionaln = 3,465- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dyslipidaemias are very common in patients who have undergone heart, lung, liver, kidney, or allogenic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and predispose such patients to an increased risk of developing ASCVD and transplant arterial vasculopathy [497-501].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The presence of an abdominal aortic aneurysm represents a riskequivalent condition for CAD and is associated with age, male gender, personal history of atherosclerotic CVD, smoking, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia [519]; in contrast, diabetic patients are at decreased risk.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [519] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Evolocumab also reduced the risk of major adverse limb events by 42% in patients, with consistent effects in those with and without known PAD.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [514]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lowering LDL-C levels reduces the risk of ischaemic CV events and worsening of claudication, while it also improves walking performance.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [512] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Atherosclerotic changes of retinal arteries correlate with TC, LDL-C, TG, and apoB levels and also with CAD [516].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [516] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the FIELD trial, fenofibrate reduced the risk of amputations, particularly minor amputations without known large-vessel disease, probably through non-lipid mechanisms [515].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [515] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Applying clinical recommendations thoroughly can favourably affect disease outcomes.
“Implementation programmes are needed because it has been shown that the outcome of disease may be favourably influenced by the thorough application of clinical recommendations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Country-specific cohort data for risk charts are not available for most countries.
“These are not available for most countries.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The SCORE system can be recalibrated for use in different populations by adjusting for secular changes in CVD mortality and risk factor prevalence.
“The SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Estimation) system can be recalibrated for use in different populations by adjusting for secular changes in CVD mortality and risk factor prevalence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
At extremely high HDL-C values above ∼2.3 mmol/L (90 mg/dL), there appears to be an increased risk of ASCVD.
“at extremely high values [above ∼2.3 mmoL/L (90 mg/dL)] of HDL-C there appears to be an increased risk of ASCVD”
The paper relies on this without support.
The relative strengths of risk factors vary with age.
“The relative strengths of risk factors vary with age”
The paper relies on this without support.
The strongest driver of total cardiovascular risk is age, which can be considered as exposure time to risk factors.
“The strongest driver of total CV risk is age, which can be considered as 'exposure time' to risk factors.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Coronary artery calcium score is often very low and has low specificity in patients younger than 45 years with severe familial hypercholesterolaemia, including homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia.
“Note that CAC score is often very low in patients younger than 45 years of age with severe familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), including homozygous FH (HoFH), and has low specificity in this population.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Coronary artery calcium score is increased following statin treatment.
“Of note, CAC score is increased following statin treatment; therefore, the CAC scores of statin-treated patients should be interpreted with caution.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Standardized, automated, accurate, and inexpensive methods to measure ApoB are available.
“Standardized, automated, accurate, and inexpensive methods to measure ApoB are available.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ApoB provides an accurate estimate of the total concentration of atherogenic particles under all circumstances.
“Because ApoB provides an accurate estimate of the total concentration of atherogenic particles under all circumstances”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A goal approach may facilitate adherence to treatment.
“It is judged that a goal approach may facilitate adherence to treatment, although this consensus opinion has not been fully tested.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Limiting current knowledge on cardiovascular prevention only to results from randomized controlled trials reduces the exploitation of the potential available for preventing ASCVD.
“The European Task Force felt that limiting the current knowledge on CV prevention only to results from RCTs reduces the exploitation of the potential that is available for the prevention of ASCVD.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The concordance of conclusions from many different approaches contributes to understanding the causes of ASCVD.
“It is the concordance of the conclusions from many different approaches (from basic science, clinical observations, genetics, epidemiology, RCTs, etc.) that contributes to the understanding of the causes of ASCVD”
The paper relies on this without support.
Phytosterols compete with cholesterol for intestinal absorption and thereby modulate total cholesterol levels.
“Phytosterols compete with cholesterol for intestinal absorption, thereby modulating TC levels.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Statins reduce hepatic cholesterol synthesis by competitively inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase, the rate-limiting step in cholesterol biosynthesis; the resulting fall in intracellular cholesterol increases LDL receptor expression, increases LDL uptake, and lowers plasma LDL and other ApoB-containing lipoproteins.
“Statins reduce the synthesis of cholesterol in the liver by competitively inhibiting the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase, the rate-limiting step in cholesterol biosynthesis. The reduction in intracellular cholesterol promotes increased LDL receptor (LDLR) expression at the surface of the hepatocytes, which in turn results in increased uptake of LDL from the blood, and decreased plasma concentrations of L”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal uptake of dietary and biliary cholesterol at the brush border by interacting with NPC1L1 without affecting fat-soluble nutrient absorption; this reduces cholesterol delivery to the liver, upregulates LDL receptors, and increases LDL clearance.
“Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal uptake of dietary and biliary cholesterol at the level of the brush border of the intestine [by interacting with the Niemann-Pick C1-like protein 1 (NPC1L1)] without affecting the absorption of fat-soluble nutrients. By inhibiting cholesterol absorption, ezetimibe reduces the amount of cholesterol delivered to the liver. In response to reduced cholesterol delivery, t”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bile acid sequestrants are not systemically absorbed or altered by digestive enzymes; by binding bile acids they prevent reabsorption of bile acids and cholesterol, increase hepatic cholesterol demand and LDL receptor expression, and decrease circulating LDL.
“As bile acid sequestrants are not systemically absorbed or altered by digestive enzymes, the beneficial clinical effects are indirect. By binding the bile acids, the drugs prevent the reabsorption of both the drug and cholesterol into the blood, and thereby remove a large portion of the bile acids from the enterohepatic circulation. The liver, depleted of bile, synthesizes more from hepatic”
The paper relies on this without support.
All currently available statins except pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and pitavastatin undergo major hepatic metabolism via cytochrome P450 isoenzymes, which are mainly expressed in liver and intestine, and other substrates of these enzymes may interfere with statin metabolism.
“All currently available statins-except pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and pitavastatin-undergo major hepatic metabolism via the CYPs. These isoenzymes are mainly expressed in the liver and intestine.”
The paper relies on this without support.
PCSK9 inhibitors lower LDL-C by up to 60% when added to statins.
“PCSK9 inhibitors lower LDL-C levels by up to 60% on top of statins.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia is a rare and life-threatening disease.
“HoFH is a rare and life-threatening disease.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia develop coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis before age 20 and die before age 30.
“Most patients develop CAD and aortic stenosis before the age of 20 years and die before 30 years of age.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Lipoprotein apheresis performed every 1-2 weeks can decrease plasma LDL-C levels by 55-70%.
“This treatment (every 1-2 weeks) can decrease plasma LDL-C levels by 55-70%.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia is rare and generally inherited as an autosomal recessive disorder with variable penetrance.
“Familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia (i.e. type III hyperlipoproteinaemia; remnant removal disease) is rare and is generally inherited as an autosomal recessive disorder with variable penetrance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Any factor that increases VLDL production can aggravate the risk of pancreatitis, with alcohol consumption being the most common contributing factor.
“Any factor that increases VLDL production can aggravate the risk of pancreatitis, with alcohol consumption being the most common contributing factor.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In general, a sharp decrease of triglyceride values is seen within 2-5 days.
“In general, a sharp decrease of TG values is seen within 2-5 days.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Volanesorsen has been approved by the EMA as an adjunct to diet in adult patients with genetically confirmed familial chylomicronaemia syndrome who are at high risk for pancreatitis.
“Volanesorsen has been recently approved by the EMA as an adjunct to diet in adult patients with genetically confirmed FCS who are at high-risk for pancreatitis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Diabetes itself is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even more so in women.
“DM itself is an independent risk factor for CVD and is associated with a higher risk of CVD, even more so in women.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In CKD patients receiving a renal transplant, ASCVD risk may be partly attributable to CKD itself.
“In patients with CKD undergoing renal transplantation, the risk of ASCVD may be determined, at least in part, by the increased risk resulting from CKD itself.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ciclosporin is metabolized via CYP3A4 and may raise systemic statin exposure and myopathy risk.
“Several potential drug interactions must also be considered, especially with ciclosporin, which is metabolized through CYP3A4, and may increase systemic statin exposure and the risk of myopathy.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ciclosporin raises blood levels of all statins.
“Ciclosporin increases the blood levels of all statins.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tacrolimus is also metabolized by CYP3A4 but appears less likely than ciclosporin to cause harmful statin interactions.
“Tacrolimus is also metabolized by CYP3A4, but appears to have less potential for harmful interaction with statins than ciclosporin.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ciclosporin can raise ezetimibe levels 2- to 12-fold.
“Ciclosporin can induce a 2-12-fold increase in the ezetimibe level.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fibrates can lower ciclosporin levels and may cause myopathy.
“Care is required with the use of fibrates, as they can decrease ciclosporin levels and have the potential to cause myopathy.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cholestyramine is ineffective as monotherapy in heart transplant patients and can reduce absorption of immunosuppressants; giving it separately minimizes this effect.
“Cholestyramine is not effective as monotherapy in heart transplant patients and has the potential to reduce absorption of immunosuppressants; this potential is minimized by separate administration.”
The paper relies on this without support.
An ABI of 0.90 or lower diagnoses lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD).
“A low ABI (0.90) is diagnostic for lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Either a low (0.90) or high (1.40) ABI predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
“Either a low (0.90) or high (1.40, related to stiffened arteries) ABI is predictive of CV morbidity and mortality.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Lowering LDL-C improves walking performance.
“Lowering LDL-C levels reduces the risk of ischaemic CV events and worsening of claudication, while it also improves walking performance.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Four large trials recruiting different types of patients with CKD have confirmed the safety of intensive LDL-C lowering with statins alone (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin), or combining a moderate dose of simvastatin with ezetimibe.698,[701][702][703][704]”
From 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. (2023) · cites this paper as [702]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 8.13. Strategies to control plasma triglycerides · p. 30
“fasting TG levels between 135 and 499 mg/dL (1.52-1.63 mmoL/L)”
§ 8.13. Strategies to control plasma triglycerides · p. 32
“TG levels between 1.5–5.6 mmol/L (135–499 mg/dL)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“an HDL-C level in the lower third [≤0.4 mmoL/L (≤34 mg/dL)]”
Reported 34 · recomputed 15.468
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Estruch, R., Ros, E., Salas-Salvadó, J., Covas, M.-I., Corella, D., Arós, F., Gómez-Gracia, E., Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V., Fiol, M., Lapetra, J., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmc1806491 · Cited by 1,008
RetractedAtherosclerosis--an inflammatory disease
Ross, R. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199901143400207 · Cited by 21,725
2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
Authors Task Force Members, Mancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redon, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cífková, R., Backer, G. D., et al. (2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht151 · Cited by 13,739
Self-citationAntiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease
Ridker, P. M., Everett, B. M., Thuren, T., MacFadyen, J. G., Chang, W. H., Ballantyne, C., Fonseca, F., Nicolau, J., Koenig, W., Anker, S. D., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1707914 · Cited by 9,482
Self-citationGlobal status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010.
Alwan, A. (2011) · Cited by 8,494
European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012)
Authors/Task Force Members:, Perk, J., De Backer, G., Gohlke, H., Graham, I., Reiner, Ž., Verschuren, M., Albus, C., Benlian, P., Boysen, G., et al. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092 · Cited by 8,490
Self-citationSacks, F. M., Pfeffer, M. A., Moye, L. A., Rouleau, J. L., Rutherford, J. D., Cole, T. G., Brown, L., Warnica, J. W., Arnold, J. M. O., Wun, C.-C., et al. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199610033351401 · Cited by 7,439
Stone, N. J., Robinson, J. G., Lichtenstein, A. H., Bairey Merz, C. N., Blum, C. B., Eckel, R. H., Goldberg, A. C., Gordon, D., Levy, D., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., et al. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437738.63853.7a · Cited by 7,081
Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein
Ridker, P. M., Danielson, E., Fonseca, F. A. H., Genest, J., Gotto, A. M., Kastelein, J. J. P., Koenig, W., Libby, P., Lorenzatti, A. J., MacFadyen, J. G., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0807646 · Cited by 6,674
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Global Lipids Genetics Consortium, 2013, Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels, Nat. Genet., 45, 1274, 10.1038/ng.2797 · DOI
- World Health Organization, 1999, Human genetics programme. Familial hypercholesterolemia: report of a second WHO consultation. WHO/HGN/FH/Cons/99.2. Geneva, World Health Organization
- Landmesser, 2017, Eur. Heart J., 38, 2245
- Tavazzi, 2008, Effect of rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Lancet, 372, 1231, 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61240-4 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice
Visseren, F. L. J., Mach, F., Smulders, Y. M., Carballo, D., Koskinas, K. C., Bäck, M., Benetos, A., Biffi, A., Boavida, J.-M., Capodanno, D., et al. (2021) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab484 · Cited by 6,485
Self-citation2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines
Unger, T., Borghi, C., Charchar, F., Khan, N. A., Poulter, N. R., Prabhakaran, D., Ramirez, A., Schlaich, M., Stergiou, G. S., Tomaszewski, M., et al. (2020) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.120.15026 · Cited by 4,132
Mancia, G., Kreutz, R., Brunström, M., Burnier, M., Grassi, G., Januszewicz, A., Muiesan, M. L., Tsioufis, K., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Algharably, E. A. E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003480 · Cited by 3,473
Self-citationSCORE2 working group and ESC Cardiovascular risk collaboration, Hageman, S., Pennells, L., Ojeda, F., Kaptoge, S., Kuulasmaa, K., de Vries, T., Xu, Z., Kee, F., Chung, R., et al. (2021) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab309 · Cited by 1,810
Self-citation2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes.
Marx, N., Federici, M., Schütt, K., Müller-Wieland, D., Ajjan, R. A., Antunes, M. J., Christodorescu, R. M., Crawford, C., Di Angelantonio, E., Eliasson, B., et al. (2023) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad192 · Cited by 1,642
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Mach, F., Baigent, C., Catapano, A. L., Koskinas, K. C., Casula, M., Badimon, L., Chapman, M. J., De Backer, G. G., Delgado, V., Ference, B. A., Graham, I. M., Halliday, A., Landmesser, U., Mihaylova, B., Pedersen, T. R., Riccardi, G., Richter, D. J., Sabatine, M. S., Taskinen, M.-R., Tokgozoglu, L., Wiklund, O., Windecker, S., Aboyans, V., Baigent, C., Collet, J.-P., Dean, V., Delgado, V., Fitzsimons, D., Gale, C. P., Grobbee, D., Halvorsen, S., Hindricks, G., Iung, B., Jüni, P., Katus, H. A., Landmesser, U., Leclercq, C., Lettino, M., Lewis, B. S., Merkely, B., Mueller, C., Petersen, S., Petronio, A. S., Richter, D. J., Roffi, M., Shlyakhto, E., Simpson, I. A., Sousa-Uva, M., Touyz, R. M., Nibouche, D., Zelveian, P. H., Siostrzonek, P., Najafov, R., van de Borne, P., Pojskic, B., Postadzhiyan, A., Kypris, L., Špinar, J., Larsen, M. L., Eldin, H. S., Viigimaa, M., Strandberg, T. E., Ferrières, J., Agladze, R., Laufs, U., Rallidis, L., Bajnok, L., Gudjónsson, T., Maher, V., Henkin, Y., Gulizia, M. M., Mussagaliyeva, A., Bajraktari, G., Kerimkulova, A., Latkovskis, G., Hamoui, O., Slapikas, R., Visser, L., Dingli, P., Ivanov, V., Boskovic, A., Nazzi, M., Visseren, F., Mitevska, I., Retterstøl, K., Jankowski, P., Fontes-Carvalho, R., Gaita, D., Ezhov, M., Foscoli, M., Giga, V., Pella, D., Fras, Z., Perez de Isla, L., Hagström, E., Lehmann, R., Abid, L., Ozdogan, O., Mitchenko, O., & Patel, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
- University of Milan (IT)
- University Hospital of Bern (CH)
- Inserm (FR)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- Federico II University Hospital (IT)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Hacettepe University (TR)
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Austrian Society of Cardiology (AT)
- Danish Society of Cardiology (DK)
- Egyptian Society of Cardiology (EG)
- Suomen Kardiologinen Seura (FI)
- Société Française de Cardiologie (FR)
- German Cardiac Society (DE)
- Hellenic Cardiological Society (GR)
- Netherlands Haemophilia Society (NL)
- Polish Cardiac Society (PL)
- Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TW)
- Slovak Society of Cardiology (SK)
- Ural Institute of Cardiology (RU)
- British Cardiovascular Society (GB)
- ORCID
- Mach, François
- Catapano, Alberico L.
- Koskinas, Konstantinos C.
- Casula, Manuela
- Chapman, M. John
- Graham, Ian M.
- Halliday, Alison
- Mihaylova, Borislava
- Pedersen, Terje R.
- Sabatine, Marc S.
- Taskinen, Marja-Riitta
- Wiklund, Olov
- Windecker, Stephan
- Aboyans, Victor
- Collet, Jean-Philippe
- Fitzsimons, Donna
- Gale, Chris P.
- Grobbee, Diederick
- Halvorsen, Sigrun
- Hindricks, Gerhard
- Iung, Bernard
- Jüni, Peter
- Katus, Hugo A.
- Leclercq, Christophe
- Lettino, Maddalena
- Mueller, Christian
- Petersen, Steffen
- Shlyakhto, Evgeny
- Simpson, Iain A.
- Touyz, Rhian M.
- Zelveian, Parounak H.
- Siostrzonek, Peter
- Najafov, Ruslan
- Postadzhiyan, Arman
- Špinar, Jindřich
- Viigimaa, Margus
- Strandberg, Timo E.
- Ferrières, Jean
- Agladze, Rusudan
- Laufs, Ulrich
- Gulizia, Michele Massimo
- Mussagaliyeva, Aisulu
- Bajraktari, Gani
- Kerimkulova, Alina
- Hamoui, Omar
- Dingli, Philip
- Ivanov, Victoria
- Visseren, Frank
- Mitevska, Irena
- Retterstøl, Kjetil
- Jankowski, Piotr
- Giga, Vojislav
- Pella, Daniel
- Hagström, Emil
- Lehmann, Roger
- Mitchenko, Olena
- Patel, Riyaz S.
- Venue
- Atherosclerosis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-11
- Volume
- 290
- Pages
- 140-205
- ISSN
- 0021-9150 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2953804067
- Semantic Scholar
- 05e5a4032d1f663b44c97a4e2f904dc1df29c5f8
- Cited by
- 4,854
- References
- 623
- Citations by year
- 2026: 91 · 2025: 402 · 2024: 811 · 2023: 932 · 2022: 859 · 2021: 951 · 2020: 722 · 2019: 79
- FWCI
- 623.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Atherosclerosis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00017/4)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Keywords
- dyslipidemia, lipid modification, cardiovascular risk reduction, dyslipidemia management, ESC/EAS guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Hypolipidemic Agents, Cardiovascular Diseases, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Consensus, Risk Reduction Behavior, Dyslipidemias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
