ArticleScandinavian journal of public health2014
Age-related differences in recommended anthropometric cut-off point validity to identify cardiovascular risk factors in ostensibly healthy women.
Article in Scandinavian journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal waist circumference cut-off points for predicting metabolic syndrome among females of reproductive age in Wakiso district, central Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Age-specific waist circumference cutoff-points for abdominal obesity diagnosis: a personalized strategy for a large Venezuelan population.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2021Article
- Utility of anthropometric traits and indices in predicting the risk of coronary artery disease in the adult men of southern Andhra Pradesh.Indian heart journal · 2018Article
- The cut-off values of anthropometric variables for predicting mild cognitive impairment in Malaysian older adults: a large population based cross-sectional study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate validity of widely recommended anthropometric and total fat percentage cut-off points in screening for cardiovascular risk factors in women of different ages.
methodsA population-based sample of 1002 Swedish women aged 38, 50, 75 (younger, middle-aged and elderly, respectively) underwent anthropometry, health examinations and blood tests. Total fat was estimated (bioimpedance) in 670 women. Sensitivity, specificity of body mass index (BMI; ≥25 and ≥30), waist circumference (WC; ≥80 cm and ≥88 cm) and total fat percentage (TF; ≥35%) cut-off points for cardiovascular risk factors (dyslipidaemias, hypertension and hyperglycaemia) were calculated for each age. Cut-off points yielding high sensitivity together with modest specificity were considered valid. Women reporting hospital admission for cardiovascular disease were excluded.
resultsThe sensitivity of WC ≥80 cm for one or more risk factors was ~60% in younger and middle-aged women, and 80% in elderly women. The specificity of WC ≥80 cm for one or more risk factors was 69%, 57% and 40% at the three ages (p < .05 for age trends). WC ≥80 cm yielded ~80% sensitivity for two or more risk factors across all ages. However, specificity decreased with increasing age (p < .0001), being 33% in elderly. WC ≥88 cm provided better specificity in elderly women. BMI and TF % cut-off points were not better than WC.
conclusionsValidity of recommended anthropometric cut-off points in screening asymptomatic women varies with age. In younger and middle-age, WC ≥80 cm yielded high sensitivity and modest specificity for two or more risk factors, however, sensitivity for one or more risk factor was less than optimal. WC ≥88 cm showed better validity than WC ≥80 cm in elderly. Our results support age-specific screening cut-off points for women.
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.