Cited by 386Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Seven direct methods for measuring HDL and LDL cholesterol compared with ultracentrifugation reference measurement procedures

Open access
Miller, W Greg, Myers, Gary L, Sakurabayashi, Ikunosuke, Bachmann, Lorin M, Caudill, Samuel P, Dziekonski, Andrzej, Edwards, Selvin, Kimberly, Mary M +9 more·2010·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. Methods: We performed each direct method according to the manufacturer’s instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. Results: Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from −5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from −6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from −8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from −11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from −13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from −13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from −19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from −26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. Conclusions: Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.

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.2009.142810

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Most discordances in dyslipidemic samples are observed at lower concentration ranges of LDLC (<1.8 mmol/L) and HDLC (<1.0 mmol/L).

    “Most discordances in dyslipidemic samples are observed at lower concentration ranges of LDLC (< 1.8 mmol/L) and HDLC (< 1.0 mmol/L) [42].”

    From Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM (2020) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Results (Trueness and Total Error) say that nearly all discordant results occurred in the diseased group and that, for most methods, they occurred mostly below HDL-C 1.0 mmol/L and LDL-C 2.5 mmol/L. The claimed LDL-C cutoff of 1.8 mmol/L is not the reported discordance range; the Discussion mentions 1.8 mmol/L as a treatment target instead. The Results also note an exception for the UMA methods. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Direct measurements of dLDLC and dHDLC in normolipidemic samples usually meet the NCEP total error goals of ≤12% and ≤13%, respectively, but total error ranged from -26% to +32% for dLDLC and -20% to +36% for dHDLC in a comprehensive study of different assays in dyslipidemic samples.

    “Direct measurements of dLDLC and dHDLC in normolipidemic samples usually meet the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) total error goals of ≤12% and ≤13%, respectively, but total error ranged from -26% to +32% for dLDLC and -20% to +36% for dHDLC in a comprehensive study of different assays in dyslipidemic samples [42].”

    From Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM (2020) · cites this paper as [42]

    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
  • Direct LDL-C measurements have limitations, including systematic bias and inaccuracy in patients with dyslipidaemia, especially at high triglyceride levels.

    “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].”

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
Miller, W. G., Myers, G. L., Sakurabayashi, I., Bachmann, L. M., Caudill, S. P., Dziekonski, A., Edwards, S., Kimberly, M. M., Korzun, W. J., Leary, E. T., Nakajima, K., Nakamura, M., Nilsson, G., Shamburek, R. D., Vetrovec, G. W., Warnick, G. R., & Remaley, A. T.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Jichi Medical University (JP)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
  • Pacific Biomarkers (United States) (US)
  • Otsuka (Japan) (JP)
  • Osaka Medical Center for Health Science and Promotion, Osaka, Japan
  • Nilsson Measurement Quality, Uppsala, Sweden
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Health Diagnostics Laboratory, Richmond, VA
Corresponding author
Miller, W Greg
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2010-06-01
Volume
56
Issue
6
Pages
977-986
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2130132335
Cited by
386
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 17
FWCI
13.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Merck
  • Pfizer
  • Abbott
  • NIH
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Keywords
HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, direct measurement method, method comparison, total error, imprecision, trueness, specificity, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease
MeSH terms
Blood Chemical Analysis, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Reference Standards, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultracentrifugation

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