Clinical utility of different lipid measures for prediction of coronary heart disease in men and women.

By E. Ingelsson, E. Schaefer, J. Contois, J. Mcnamara, Lisa Sullivan, M. Keyes, Michael J. Pencina, C. Schoonmaker, Peter W. F. Wilson, Ralph B. D’Agostino and 1 more. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2007

654 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias. (2016, background): “Recent data from a meta-analysis(83,90) indicate that apoB does not provide any benefit beyond non-HDL-C or traditional lipid ratios.(101) Likewise, apoB provided no benefit beyond traditional lipid markers in people with diabetes in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD”
Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers (2010, neutral): “On the other hand, the NRI seems to have gained popularity in medical journals, most likely due to its simplicity [7, 13].”
A Meta-Analysis of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Non-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein B as Markers of Cardiovascular Risk (2011, background): “Each individual study RRRs were significantly (P 0.05) 1.0 except for non-HDL-C in the Casale Monferrato study (P 0.22)19 and Copenhagen Heart women (P 0.058)13 and for LDL-C in the health professionals with diabetes (P 0.08),16 Casale Monferrato (P 0.17), Copenhagen Heart women (P 0.13), and Framin”