The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lipoprotein(a) and Coronary Heart Disease: Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies
Abstract
Background —Studies of the association between the plasma concentration of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and coronary heart disease (CHD) have reported apparently conflicting findings. We report a meta-analysis of the prospective studies with at least 1 year of follow-up published before 2000. Methods and Results —The following information was abstracted for each study: geographical location of study, size, type of cohort (population-based or selected because of previous disease), mean age, follow-up duration, blood storage temperature and duration, assay methods, degree of adjustment for potential confounders, and relationship of baseline Lp(a) measurement with subsequent CHD risk. There were 5436 deaths from CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarctions during a weighted mean follow-up of 10 years in the 27 eligible studies. Comparison of individuals in the top third of baseline plasma Lp(a) measurements with those in the bottom third in each study yielded a combined risk ratio of 1.6 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8, 2 P <0.00001), with similar findings when the analyses were restricted to the 18 studies of general populations (combined risk ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9; 2 P <0.00001). Despite differences among studies in blood storage techniques and assay methods, there was no significant heterogeneity among the results from the 18 population-based studies or among those from the 9 studies of patients with previous disease. Lp(a) was only weakly correlated with classical vascular risk factors, and adjustment for those that had been recorded made little difference to the reported risk ratios. Conclusions —These prospective studies demonstrate a clear association between Lp(a) and CHD, but further studies are needed to determine the extent to which this is causal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schaefer, E. J. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510370051031 · Cited by 487
Cited by
Meschia, J. F., Bushnell, C., Boden-Albala, B., Braun, L. T., Bravata, D. M., Chaturvedi, S., Creager, M. A., Eckel, R. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Fornage, M., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000046 · Cited by 2,650
Ridker, P. M., Buring, J. E., Rifai, N., & Cook, N. R. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.297.6.611 · Cited by 1,814
Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current status
Nordestgaard, B. G., Chapman, M. J., Ray, K., Borén, J., Andreotti, F., Watts, G. F., Ginsberg, H., Amarenco, P., Catapano, A., Descamps, O. S., et al. (2010) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq386 · Cited by 1,807
(2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1063 · Cited by 1,753
Graham (2007) · doi:10.1097/01.hjr.0000277983.23934.c9 · Cited by 1,647
Metadata
- Authors
- Danesh, J., Collins, R., & Peto, R.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2000-09-05
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1082-1085
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2130483103
- Cited by
- 938
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 44.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.