Ве молиме користете го овој идентификатор да го цитирате или поврзете овој запис: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12188/34436
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKostovska, Irenaen_US
dc.contributor.authorTosheska Trajkovska, Katerinaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-05T07:51:02Z-
dc.date.available2025-12-05T07:51:02Z-
dc.date.issued2025-12-04-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12188/34436-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a cornerstone biomarker for cardiovascular risk. The Friedewald formula has long been the standard for estimating LDL-C, however, it has limitations, particularly in patients with hypertriglyceridemia or low LDL-C levels. Several alternative equations, including the Martin–Hopkins (M/H) and Sampson formulas, have been developed to improve accuracy. Among them, M/H has gained recognition for its performance in specific populations, but it represents only one of several refined methods used across professional communities. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the accuracy and precision of the Friedewald and M/H formulas in diverse populations, acknowledging that other approaches also exist. Methods: A systematic review of articles published between 2018 and 2024 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus (Elsevier), and Web of Science-eligible studies directly compared both formulas against direct LDL-C measurement in adult populations. A random-effects model was used to pool mean absolute errors (MAEs), root mean square errors (RMSEs), correlation coefficients, and p-values. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Results: Eight novel studies, involving a total of 192,094 participants, were included. The M/H formula showed significantly lower MAE (3.6 mg/dL vs. 8.4 mg/dL, p < 0.001), lower RMSE (5.1 mg/ dL vs. 9.8 mg/dL, p < 0.001), and a stronger correlation with direct LDL-C (r = 0.92 vs. r = 0.84) compared to the Friedewald formula. The superiority of the M/H formula was especially evident in patients with triglycerides >200 mg/dL or LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Conclusion: The M/H formula provides more accurate and precise LDL-C estimation than Friedewald, particularly in clinically vulnerable groups. However, it should be considered one of several improved approaches, alongside other equations such as Sampson, which may perform better in certain populations. M/H can be recommended as a strong option, but is not the sole alternative for routine lipid profiling.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBulgarian Society of Cardiology and Pensoft Publishersen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBulgarian Cardiologyen_US
dc.subjectLDL cholesterolen_US
dc.subjectFriedewald formulaen_US
dc.subjectMartin-Hopkins formulaen_US
dc.subjectcardiovascular risken_US
dc.subjectlipid profileen_US
dc.subjecttriglyceridesen_US
dc.subjectmeta-analysisen_US
dc.titleCOMPARATIVE ACCURACY OF LDL-CHOLESTEROL ESTIMATION: OMPARATIVE ACCURACY OF LDL-CHOLESTEROL ESTIMATION: A META-ANALYSIS OF THE FRIEDEWALD AND MARTIN-HOPKINS EQUATION META-ANALYSIS OF THE FRIEDEWALD AND MARTIN-HOPKINS EQUATIONen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3897/bgcardio.31.e167784-
dc.identifier.eissn2683-1015-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptFaculty of Medicine-
crisitem.author.deptFaculty of Medicine-
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Medicine: Journal Articles
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
Bulgarian_Cardiology_article_167784_en_1.pdf330.91 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Прикажи едноставен запис

Google ScholarTM

Проверете

Altmetric


Записите во DSpace се заштитени со авторски права, со сите права задржани, освен ако не е поинаку наведено.