Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Cholesterol and blood fats

Copperand LDL cholesterol

Both sources here found no clear difference in LDL cholesterol.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

-0.460.22 standardised effect size0.89

This range crosses the no-difference line, so these numbers fit a real difference and no difference at all equally well.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

Two sources, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2021

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Effects of Copper Supplementation on Blood Lipid Level: a Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis on Randomized Clinical Trials.

    Biol Trace Elem Res. 2021;199(8):2851-2857. doi:10.1007/s12011-020-02423-1. PMID:33030656.

    Number reported
    0.22 standardised effect size
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    -0.46 to 0.89
    Source’s own words
    standardised mean difference vs control
    Who was studied
    Not stated in the abstract
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe confidence interval includes no effectReported in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    Source saved; quote checked byte-for-byte against it by software; no signature.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Randomised trial, 2013 · 60 participants

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Copper supplementation at 8 mg neither affects circulating lipids nor liver function in apparently healthy Chilean men.

    Biol Trace Elem Res. 2013;156(1-3):1-4. doi:10.1007/s12011-013-9823-4. PMID:24096552.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    no between-group effect reported (23 % is a nonsignificant within-arm change)
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    8 mg/d copper as copper sulfate
    For how long
    180 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One give no number at all, only which way it went.
  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • One do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Copper

Eight of the 16 things on our list for Copper have no reading here yet:

  • HDL cholesterol
  • Hematocrit
  • Hemoglobin
  • Neutrophils, Absolute
  • Serum iron
  • Symptom Radar (Sickness Detection)
  • Triglycerides
  • White blood cell count

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.