Comparison of LDL - cholesterol estimated by direct method and by calculation

Badrakiya, Kinjal Mukeshbhai; Shah, Aashna Darshanbhai; Makadia, Mayur Goradhanbhai; Patel, Vishwal Indravadan; Patel, Kaustubh; Chaudhari, K. S.; Nilayangode, Haridas Neelakandan

doi:10.7439/ijbar.v7i8.3496

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These methods are expensive, inconvenient, and not readily available in most of the routine laboratories. 2 Because of these limitation, many clinical laboratories throughout the world use a less expensive and easy approach for the estimation of LDL-C, that is, Friedewald's formula. 3 However, there are several shortcomings of this formula, mainly the underestimation of LDL-C at high triglyceride (TG) levels and overestimation at low TG levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Martin's Formula As the Most Suitable Method for Estimation of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Indian Population

Farheen,

Ambiger,

Jaalam

et al. 2023

J Lab Physicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Because of cost effectiveness, most of the laboratories in India estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with the Friedewald's formula. There were many shortcomings of the Friedewald's formula. Recently, Martin and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C. The present study was undertaken to calculate LDL-C using various formulae (Friedewald's formula, Anandaraja's formula, and Martin's formula) and to compare directly measured LDL-C (D-LDL-C) with calculated LDL-C at various ranges of triglyceride (TG) concentration. Materials and Methods The present study compared LDL-C measured by Martin's formula, Friedewald's formula, and Anandaraja's formula with D-LDL-C in 280 outpatient fasting samples between the age groups of 18 and 50 years. Depending on the TG values, study samples were divided into four groups. Group 1: less than 200 mg/dL; Group 2: 200 to 300 mg/dL; Group 3: 300 to 400 mg/dL; and Group 4: more than 400 mg/dL. Results Martin's formula shows highest correlation with r-value of 0.9979 compared with Friedewald's (0.9857) and Anandaraja's (0.9683) r-values. The mean difference was least for Martin's formula (0.31 ± 3.53) compared with other formulae. Among all the groups, percentage of error was least for Martin's formula (0.23%). Martin's LDL-C shows highest concordance (90.90%) compared with Friedewald's (79.60%) and Anandaraja's formulae (82.90%). Conclusion Among all the groups, Martin's formula shows highest correlation, least percentage of error, highest concordance, and least mean differences. At all TG levels, Martin's formula is the best formula compared with the Friedewald's formula and Anandaraja's formula.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Martin's Formula As the Most Suitable Method for Estimation of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Indian Population

Farheen,

Ambiger,

Jaalam

et al. 2023

J Lab Physicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Martin’s formula is best to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

Farheen,

Ambiger,

Jaalam

et al. 2024

JLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Due to the cost-effectiveness, most of the laboratories in India estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with the Friedewald’s formula. There were many shortcomings of the Friedewald’s formula. Recently, Martins have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C. The present study was undertaken to calculate LDL-C using various formulae (Friedewald’s formula, Anandaraja’s formula, and Martin’s formula) and to compare directly measured LDL-C with calculated LDL-C at various ranges of triglyceride (TG) concentration. Materials and Methods: The present study compared LDL-C measured by Martin’s formula, Friedewald’s formula, and Anandaraja’s formula with directly measured LDL In 280 Outpatient fasting samples between the age group of 18 and 50 years. Depending on the TG values, study samples are divided into four groups. Group 1: <200 mg/dL, Group 2: 200–300 mg/dL, Group 3: 300–400 mg/dL, Group 4: >400 mg/dL. Statistical Analysis: This was performed by the Statistical package for social sciences version 16. Paired t test and pearson correlation were performed to find the significant difference and correlation between direct LDL-C and calculated LDL-C by different formula. Results: Martin’s formula shows highest correlation with r-value of (0.9979) compared to Friedewald’s (0.9857) and Anandaraja’s (0.9683) r-values. The mean difference was least for Martin’s formula (0.31 ± 3.53) compared to other formulae. Among all the groups, the percentage of error was least for Martin’s formula (0.23%). Martin’s LDL-C shows highest concordance (90.90%) compared to Friedewald’s (79.60%) and Anandaraja’s formulae (82.90%). Conclusions: Among all the groups, Martin’s formula shows highest correlation, least percentage of error, highest concordance, and least mean differences. At all TG levels, Martin’s formula is the best formula compared to the Friedewald’s formula and Anandaraja’s formula.

show abstract

Comparability of estimated and determined LDL cholesterol in hospitalized children

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The concentration of LDL cholesterol (LDLC) is the main parameter used in the stratification of risk and the management of atherosclerosis. Aim of study: The aim of this study was to compare the LDLC concentration calculated by the Friedewald (LDLCF ), the Cordova (LDLCC) and the Planelli (LDLCP ) formulas with the LDLC concentration measured by direct metod (LDLCD) with regard to age and sample matrix. Material and Methods: 594 serum samples were collected from children (1 day to 18 years) hospitalized in University Children’s Hospital in Krakow. Concentrations of hemoglobin A1c and/or creatinine were determined. In all serum samples total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and LDLCD were measured. In addition, the LDLC concentration was estimated. Results: The means of the LDLCF and LDLCC concentrations were significantly lower compared to the mean of the LDLCD in all samples and in samples from children ≥1 years of age (in all cases p<0,0001). Bland-Altman analys is showed, that the values LDLCC were not comparable to the values of LDLCD in samples from all children and regardless of the LDLCD concentration. In samples with HbA1c≥6,0% mean values of differences between estimated LDLC and LDLCD were higher than in samples with HbA1c<6,0%, regardless of the used formula. The mean values of differences between estimated LDLC and LDLCD in samples with creatinine concentrations <74,0 µmol/l and ≥74,0 µmol/l differed significantly regardless of the used formula (in all cases p<0,001). Conclusion: The differences between concentration of determined and estimated LDLC depend on composition of sample matrix and formula which is used in calculations.

show abstract

Comparison of LDL - cholesterol estimated by direct method and by calculation

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Martin's Formula As the Most Suitable Method for Estimation of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Indian Population

Martin's Formula As the Most Suitable Method for Estimation of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Indian Population

Martin’s formula is best to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

Comparability of estimated and determined LDL cholesterol in hospitalized children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About