Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30968371›Full record

ArticleEating and weight disorders : EWD2020

Comparison of visceral, general and central obesity indices in the prediction of metabolic syndrome in maintenance hemodialysis patients.

Chaomin Zhou, Lin Zhan, Jing Yuan, Xiaoya Tong, Yanzhe Peng, Yan Zha

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors.

Chaomin ZhouRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Guizhou Provincial People' s Hospital, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Nephritic and Urinary Disease, Guiyang, 550002, Guizhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0817-4078
Lin ZhanBlood Center of Guizhou Province, Guiyang, China.
Jing YuanRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Guizhou Provincial People' s Hospital, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Nephritic and Urinary Disease, Guiyang, 550002, Guizhou, China.
Xiaoya TongRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Guizhou Provincial People' s Hospital, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Nephritic and Urinary Disease, Guiyang, 550002, Guizhou, China.
Yanzhe PengRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Guizhou Provincial People' s Hospital, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Nephritic and Urinary Disease, Guiyang, 550002, Guizhou, China.
Yan ZhaRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Guizhou Provincial People' s Hospital, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Nephritic and Urinary Disease, Guiyang, 550002, Guizhou, China. zhayan72@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to compare the predictive ability of the anthropometric indices reflecting general, central and visceral obesity for identification of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients.

methodsA multicenter, cross-sectional study that consisted of 1603 adult MHD patients (54.6 ± 16 years) was conducted in Guizhou Province, Southwest China. Eight anthropometric obesity indexes including body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-height ratio (WHtR), conicity index (Ci) and visceral adiposity index (VAI), lipid accumulation product (LAP), a body shape index (ABSI) and body roundness index (BRI) were recorded. MetS was defined based on the criteria of the International Diabetes Federation. Participants were categorized into four groups according to quartiles of different obesity indices. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations between the eight obesity parameters and MetS. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analyses were used to identify the best predictor of MetS.

resultsThe eight anthropometric obesity indexes were independently associated with MetS risk, even after adjustment for age, sex, educational status and history of smoking. The ROC analysis revealed that all the eight obesity indices included in the study were able to discriminate MetS [all area under the ROC curves (AUCs) > 0.6, P < 0.05]. LAP showed the highest AUC and according to the maximum Youden indexes, the cut off values for men and women were 27.29 and 36.45, respectively. The AUCs of LAP, VAI, ABSI, BRI, WC, WHtR, Ci and BMI were 0.88, 0.87, 0.60, 0.78, 0.79, 0.78, 0.69 and 0.76 for men, and 0.87, 0.85, 0.65, 0.79, 0.81, 0.79, 0.73 and 0.76 for women, respectively. There was no significant difference in the AUC value between LAP and VAI, BRI/WHtR and BMI in men and between BRI/WHtR and BMI in women. The AUC value for WHtR was equal to that for BRI in identifying MetS.

conclusionsVisceral obesity marker LAP followed by VAI was the most effective predictor of MetS while ABSI followed by CI was the weakest indicator for the screening of MetS in MHD patients. BRI could be an alternative obesity measure to WHtR in assessment of MetS. LAP may be a simple and useful screening tool to identify individuals at high risk of MetS particularly in middle-aged and elderly Chinese MHD patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, descriptive study.

Indexed as

Renal DialysisAdiposityAdultAgedBody Mass IndexCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMetabolic SyndromeMiddle AgedObesityWaist CircumferenceWaist-Height RatioHemodialysisMetabolic syndromeObesity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.