ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2013
Confirmatory factor analysis to assess the measure of adiposity that best fits the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome and relationship to physical activity in adults.
Article in European journal of nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obesity Indices to Use for Identifying Metabolic Syndrome among Rural Adults in South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of the study is to assess the goodness of fit for the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome in adults of four models with different measures of adiposity using confirmatory factor analysis, to develop a cardio metabolic risk index and to analyze its relationship to physical activity.
methodsCross-sectional descriptive multicenter study including 636 patients from the EVIDENT study. Considering as fixed variables, triglycerides/HDL-C ratio, HOMA-IR index and mean arterial pressure, we will compare which single-factor model of metabolic syndrome shows better goodness of fit. The models only differ by the measure of adiposity used: waist circumference, waist circumference/height, body mass index or adiposity index. With the factorial weights obtained, we created a quantitative metabolic index and analyzed its relationship to physical activity, quantified with the accelerometer for 1 week and measured at counts/min.
resultsThe single-factor model including waist circumference in women and body mass index in men were those that were better indicators of goodness of fit. The estimated quantitative metabolic index shows a mean value in men of -0.022 ± 1.29 with a range of values between -3.36 and 4.57 and in women of 0.0001 ± 1.53 with a range of values between -3.17 and 5.55. The quantitative index shows an inverse relationship to physical activity.
conclusionsWaist circumference in women and body mass index in men are the measures of adiposity that were better indicators goodness of fit. This quantitative index may be useful to quantify the risk of metabolic syndrome in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.