Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Unraveling the controversy between fasting and nonfasting lipid testing in a normal population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 244,665 participants
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Unraveling the controversy between fasting and nonfasting lipid testing in a normal population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 244,665 participants
Do you wish to request the book?
Unraveling the controversy between fasting and nonfasting lipid testing in a normal population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 244,665 participants
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Unraveling the controversy between fasting and nonfasting lipid testing in a normal population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 244,665 participants
2024
Overview
Background
The final decision to fast or not fast for routine lipid profile examination in a standard, healthy population is unclear. Whereas the United States and European protocols state that fasting for regular lipid analysis is unnecessary, the North American and Chinese guidelines still recommend fasting before routine lipid testing.
Aim
This study aimed to unravel the contradiction between the different protocols of lipid profile testing worldwide and clarify the effect of diet on lipid profile testing only in a regular, healthy population.
Methods
A literature search was conducted through May 2024. The analyses included studies performed from the date 2000 until now because the contradiction of guidelines for lipid profile testing appeared for the first time in this period. A planned internal validity evaluation was performed using the National Institute of Health (NIH) quality measurement tools for observational cohort, case‒control, controlled interventional, and cross-sectional studies. The data were synthesized according to RevMan 5.3.
Results
Eight studies with a total of 244,665 participants were included. The standardized mean difference in cholesterol in six studies showed significant differences in overall effect among fasting and nonfasting states (
P
< 0.00001), as did high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (
P
< 0.00001). At the same time, with respect to triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, there were notable variations in the overall effect between the fasted and nonfasted states (
P
< 0.00001 and
P
≤ 0.001, respectively).
Conclusions
This meta-analysis concluded that fasting for lipid profile testing is preferred as a conservative model to reduce variability and increase consistency in patients’ metabolic status when sampling for lipid testing.
