Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of improved precipitation methods for quantification of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Warnick, G R, Nguyen, T, Albers, A A·1985·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

We compared the standard Lipid Research Clinics heparin-Mn2+ (46 mmol/L) method and five improved precipitation methods for quantification of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Three of these methods--a dextran sulfate-Mg2+ procedure, reported as a Selected Method, a modified heparin-Mn2+ (92 mmol/L) method, and a modified phosphotungstate-Mg2+ procedure--all gave similar results. Three other methods--the standard heparin-Mn2+ (46 mmol/L) method and two polyethylene glycol methods (75 g/L or pH 10 reagent at 100 g/L final concentrations)--gave slightly higher values for HDL cholesterol. Addition of NaCl or glucose to specimens did not significantly change protein precipitation. In terms of sedimentation effectiveness with hypertriglyceridemic specimens, the methods were ranked in the following order: polyethylene glycol (pH 10, 100 g/L) greater than dextran sulfate-Mg2+ greater than heparin-Mn2+ (92 mmol/L) = polyethylene glycol (75 g/L) greater than phosphotungstate-Mg2+ greater than heparin-Mn2+ (46 mmol/L).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/clinchem/31.2.217

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Warnick, G. R., Nguyen, T., & Albers, A. A.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
1985-02-01
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
217-222
ISSN
  • 0009-9147
  • 1530-8561
Cited by
303
References
0
Language
en

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.

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