English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major modifiable risk factor for cardio- cerebrovascular disease. In clinical practice, however, it is primarily calculated using the Friedewald formula as a cost-effective method. The aim of this study was to compare Friedewald-estimated and directly measured LDL-C values and assess the concordance in guideline LDL-C risk classification between the two methods. The data were derived from the 2009 and 2010 Korea National Health and Nutrition Survey (KNHANES). Analysis was done for 4,319 subjects with lipid panels-total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), directly measured LDL-C using an enzymatic homogeneous assay, and triglycerides (TG). For subjects with TG lower than 400 mg/dL, Friedewald-estimated and directly measured LDL-C were highly correlated (r = 0.958, p . As a result, Friedewald estimation misclassified 382 subjects (9.1%) in a higher category versus 348 subjects (8.3%) in a lower category. Our findings suggest that overestimation of LDL-C by the Friedewald formula can be a great problem as well as underestimation.

Friedewald-Estimated Versus Directly Measured LDL-Cholesterol: KNHANES 2009-2010