Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Dec;49(8):619-626.
doi: 10.5543/tkda.2021.90446.

Comparison of Martin and Friedewald equation for estimated LDL-C in adults

Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Comparison of Martin and Friedewald equation for estimated LDL-C in adults

Medine Alpdemir et al. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2021 Dec.
Free article

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare the directly measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), Friedewald, and a new Martin LDL-C formula in the Turkish adult population.

Methods: A total of 1,558 patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years with a triglyceride level of <400 mg/dL were included in this study. Serum lipid profiles of all the patients were measured with Cobas 6000 c501 (Roche Diagnostic), and LDL-C concentrations were measured by a homogeneous direct method using reagents. [TC- (HDL-C+(TG/5)] and Martin [TC- (HDL-C+TG / new adjustable factor)] formulas were used to estimate LDL-C.

Results: The average age of the patients was 52.7±12.3 years. Of the 1,558 patients, 56% were women and 44% were men. The d-LDL-C, F-LDL-C, and M-LDL-C concentrations in all the patients were 148.6±39.8 mg/dL, 123.9±38.7 mg/dL, and 133.4±35.9 mg/dL, respectively. The mean difference between F-LDL-C and M-LDL-C concentrations according to d-LDL-C was 24.6±10.7 and 15.10±10.3, respectively. For comparing the scatter blot plot [estimated LDL-C(x) and d-LDL-C(y)] were calculated by the equations y=1.1665x+0 for Friedewald and y=1.1667x+0 for Martin. When compared to the d-LDL-C concentration, both the Friedewald and Martin formulas showed a strong correlation (r=0.963, r=0.968, respectively). The new adjustable factor mean of the Martin formula was 6.1±0.9.

Conclusion: In our study, the Martin formula showed a relatively better separation. Although there was a strong correlation between the formulas and d-LDL-C, there was a negative bias for the two formulas. These formulas show a lower risk in the determination of the risk of coronary heart disease and in the planning of treatment strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources