ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2021
Validity of continuous metabolic syndrome score for predicting metabolic syndrome; a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Gut microbiome mediates the association between dietary quality and metabolic risk in a heterogeneous adult population.Nutrition & metabolism · 2026Article
- The Predictive Ability and Trend of Continuous Metabolic Syndrome (cMets) Score as a Marker for the Presence of Metabolic Syndrome among Iranian Adults from 2007 to 2025 Using STEPS Studies.International journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Risk Analysis in the Lower Silesia Healthy Donors Cohort: Statistical Insights and Machine Learning Classification.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Associations Between Sedentary Behaviors and Sedentary Patterns with Metabolic Syndrome in Children and Adolescents: The UP&DOWN Longitudinal Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Metabolic complications of obesity in children and adolescents.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2024Article
- Unsupervised identification of cardiometabolic profiles among adolescents: findings from the PARIS birth cohort study.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- The association between continuous metabolic syndrome score and its components with electrocardiographic abnormalities in community-dwelling older adults: the Bushehr elderly health (BEH) program.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Robust metabolic syndrome risk score based on triangular areal similarity.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- cMetS Based on Z-Scores as an Accurate and Efficient Scoring System to Determine Metabolic Syndrome in Spanish Adolescents.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNowadays, use of continuous metabolic syndrome (cMetS) score has been suggested to improve recognition of metabolic syndrome (MetS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of cMetS scores for predicting MetS.
methodsWe searched the electronic databases included MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus from 1 January 1980 to 30 September 2020. Observational studies on participants with different cMetS scores were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% CI were calculated.
resultsTen studies involving a total of 25,073 participants were included. All studies had cross-sectional design. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cMetS scores for predicting MetS were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83 to 0.95) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83 to 0.89), respectively. Moreover, cMetS scores had the pooled LR+ of 6.5 (95% CI: 5.0 to 8.6), and a pooled (LR-) of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.063 to 0.21). The pooled DOR of cMetS scores to predict MetS were 57 (95% CI: 26 to 127).
conclusionsThe high sensitivity and specificity of cMetS scores indicates that it has a high accuracy to predict the risk of MetS. Furthermore, the cMetS scores has a good ability to rule out healthy people. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42020157273.
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.