MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417358375 · doi:10.5334/gh.1506

Global Guidance for Dyslipidaemia Management in Adults: A Scoping Review

2025· article· en· W4417358375 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew E. Moran, Ashish Krishna, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mawuényégan Kouamivi Agboyibor, Rauell John Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsScope (computer science)Best practicePrimary careScope of practicePrimary preventionMEDLINEGlobal health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Dyslipidaemia is a leading preventable cause of global cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden, responsible for over four million deaths each year (1). A scoping review took a worldwide perspective and assessed recent World Health Organization (WHO) guidance documents, other national or regional guidelines, and randomized controlled trial evidence supporting dyslipidaemia management best practices. Methods: Review of WHO guidance documents included aspects of dyslipidaemia management, but none provided a detailed and comprehensive approach. Of 11 non-WHO national or regional dyslipidaemia guidelines, nine met pre-defined inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. Structured electronic searches of MEDLINE found 27 systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials supporting dyslipidaemia management guideline priority topics. Findings: This scoping review found overall consistency in the recommendations of regional and national dyslipidaemia guideline recommendations. Guidelines varied in terms of approach to assessing patient CVD risk and recommendations to treat with non-statin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Robust randomized trial evidence supports that a dyslipidaemia management guideline focuses on priority areas including approach to patient selection for LLT efficacy and safety, selection of initial LLT drugs and dose intensity, timing of LLT monitoring, and LLT management in specific high-risk groups (familial hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, HIV and other inflammatory diseases, and older adults). Few regional or national guidelines provided practical implementation recommendations or cost-effectiveness assessments; less clinical trial evidence was found for the priority topic of equitable treatment. Conclusion: Taking a global perspective, this scoping review describes the scope and depth of the current evidence base informing best practice management of dyslipidaemia for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0190.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal HeartSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207