Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33075086›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Prevalence of metabolic syndrome among adult population in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yuvaraj Krishnamoorthy, Sathish Rajaa, Sharan Murali, Tanveer Rehman, Jayaprakash Sahoo, Sitanshu Sekhar Kar

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. High-intensity interval training andResearch in pharmaceutical sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Yuvaraj KrishnamoorthyDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Sathish RajaaDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Sharan MuraliDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Tanveer RehmanDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2377-4394
Jayaprakash SahooDepartment of Endocrinology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Sitanshu Sekhar KarDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7122-523X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis review was done to determine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MS) among adult general population in India. We also wanted to find the gender, setting, and region-wide distribution of MS in India.

methodsWe conducted systematic searches in various databases including Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane library and Google Scholar from inception until August 2019. We included studies conducted in India reporting the prevalence of MS among adults aged 18 years or more. We used the Newcastle Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included studies. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Funnel plot to assess publication biases.

resultsIn total, we analysed 113 data from 111 studies with 133,926 participants. Majority of the included studies (76 out of 111) had low risk of bias. We found significant heterogeneity among the included studies (p<0.001). We also found a symmetrical funnel plot indicating an absence of publication bias. The prevalence of MS among adult population in India was 30% (95%CI: 28%-33%). There was a steady increase in the burden across the age groups from 13% (18-29 years group) to 50% (50-59 years). We also found that people living in urban areas (32%; 95%CI: 29%-36%) had higher prevalence when compared to tribal (28%; 95%CI: 21%-36%) or rural adults (22%; 95%CI: 20%-25%). Gender distribution of MS showed that the females had higher prevalence (35%; 95%CI: 31%-38%) when compared to males 26% (95%CI: 22%-29%).

conclusionAlmost one in three adults in India suffer from MS. Females, people living in urban areas and in northeast region had higher prevalence of MS. Development and implementation of policies and protocols for the screening of MS would enable us in early diagnosis and treatment with special focus towards the vulnerable and high-risk groups.

Indexed as

AdultAge DistributionFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMetabolic SyndromeMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk FactorsSex CharacteristicsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33075086
PMCPMC7571716

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.