Cited by 176Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Comparison of LDL cholesterol concentrations by Friedewald calculation and direct measurement in relation to cardiovascular events in 27,331 women

Open access
Mora, Samia, Rifai, Nader, Buring, Julie E, Ridker, Paul M·2009·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines recommend development of direct assays for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) measurement, but it is unclear how these assays compare with Friedewald calculation in predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: In a study of 27 331 healthy women with triglycerides ≤4.52 mmol/L (≤400 mg/dL), baseline fasting Friedewald LDL-C was compared with fasting and nonfasting direct homogenous measurement for incident CVD during an 11-year period. Results: Fasting LDL-C measurements obtained by the 2 methods were highly correlated (r = 0.976, P < 0.001). Compared with fasting Friedewald LDL-C, mean fasting direct LDL-C was 0.15 mmol/L (5.6 mg/dL) lower and nonfasting direct LDL-C 0.30 mmol/L (11.5 mg/dL) lower, both P < 0.0001. The adjusted hazard ratio per 1-SD increment was 1.23 [95% CI 1.15–1.32; 1-SD 0.88 mmol/L (34.1 mg/dL)] for fasting direct LDL-C and 1.22 [95% CI 1.14–1.30; 1-SD 0.90 mmol/L (34.9 mg/dL)] for fasting Friedewald. Nonfasting LDL-C was not associated with CVD by either method. Fasting LDL-C measurements fell into the same NCEP risk category with either method for 79.3% of participants, whereas they differed by 1 NCEP category for 20.7% of participants, with most classified into a lower-risk category by direct LDL-C. Conclusions: The association of LDL-C with CVD by the 2 methods was nearly identical in fasting samples. However, the lower direct LDL-C concentrations may misclassify many individuals into a lower NCEP category. Moreover, the lack of association of nonfasting direct LDL-C with CVD raises questions regarding the clinical utility of a direct assay for LDL-C in nonfasting blood samples.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2008.117929

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even in normotriglyceridemic samples and in samples with moderately elevated TG concentrations 2.0-4.5 mmol/L, dLDLC may not always agree with Friedewald cLDLC and translate to discrepant risk classifications as observed in fasting as well as nonfasting individuals.

    “Even in normotriglyceridemic samples and in samples with moderately elevated TG concentrations 2.0-4.5 mmol/L, dLDLC may not always agree with Friedewald cLDLC and translate to discrepant risk classifications as observed in fasting as well as nonfasting individuals [51].”

    From Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM (2020) · cites this paper as [51]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There can be significant discrepancies between directly measured and calculated LDL-C levels within the same sample, especially at lower LDL-C levels.

    “Nonetheless, the committee acknowledges that there can be significant discrepancies in levels of directly measured versus calculated LDL-C within the same sample, especially at lower LDL-C levels (19,20).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mora, S., Rifai, N., Buring, J. E., & Ridker, P. M.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Mora, Samia
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2009-05-01
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
888-894
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2002172809
Cited by
176
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
12.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL-43851, CA-47988, K08 HL094375)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • Donald W. Reynolds Foundation
  • Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  • AstraZeneca
  • Novartis
  • Merck
  • American Heart Association (0670007N)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
LDL cholesterol, Friedewald formula, cardiovascular risk, women, triglycerides, method comparison, cardiovascular events
MeSH terms
Aspirin, Cardiovascular Diseases, Fasting, Female, Humans, Hypercholesterolemia, Cholesterol, LDL, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Triglycerides, Vitamin E, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Statistics, Nonparametric

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