Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23533799›Full record

ArticleISRN endocrinology2013

A Comparison between Revised NCEP ATP III and IDF Definitions in Diagnosing Metabolic Syndrome in an Urban Sri Lankan Population: The Ragama Health Study.

S Chackrewarthy, D Gunasekera, A Pathmeswaren, C N Wijekoon, U K Ranawaka, N Kato, F Takeuchi, A R Wickremasinghe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ISRN endocrinology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Why primary obesity is a disease?Journal of translational medicine · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

S ChackrewarthyFaculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, 11010 Ragama, Sri Lanka.
D Gunasekera
A Pathmeswaren
C N Wijekoon
U K Ranawaka
N Kato
F Takeuchi
A R Wickremasinghe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) within individual cohorts varies with the definition used. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of MetS between IDF and revised NCEP ATP III criteria in an urban Sri Lankan population and to investigate the characteristics of discrepant cases. Methods. 2985 individuals, aged 35-65 years, were recruited to the study. Anthropometric and blood pressure measurements and laboratory investigations were carried out following standard protocols. Results. Age and sex-adjusted prevalences of MetS were 46.1% and 38.9% by revised NCEP and IDF definitions, respectively. IDF criteria failed to identify 21% of men and 7% of women identified by the revised NCEP criteria. The discrepant group had more adverse metabolic profiles despite having a lower waist circumference than those diagnosed by both criteria. Conclusion. MetS is common in this urban Sri Lankan cohort regardless of the definition used. The revised NCEP definition was more appropriate in identifying the metabolically abnormal but nonobese individuals, especially among the males predisposed to type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Further research is needed to determine the suitability of the currently accepted Asian-specific cut-offs for waist circumference in Sri Lankan adults.

Identifiers

PMID23533799
PMCPMC3600172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.