ArticleEndocrine2022
Incidence and prediction nomogram for metabolic syndrome in a middle-aged Vietnamese population: a 5-year follow-up study.
Article in Endocrine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and factors associated with metabolic syndrome and its components among overweight and obese reproductive-age women in Bac Giang, Vietnam.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Investigation of the relationship between atherogenic index, anthropometric characteristics, and 10-year risk of metabolic syndrome: a population-based study.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Incidence of Metabolic Syndrome and Its Risk Factors in Elderly with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2023Article
- Association of Myopia With Risk of Incident Metabolic Syndrome: Findings From the UK Biobank Study Cohort of 91,591 Participants.Frontiers in 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to determine the incidence and prediction nomogram for new-onset metabolic syndrome (MetS) in a middle-aged Vietnamese population.
methodsA population-based prospective study was conducted in 1150 participants aged 40-64 years without MetS at baseline and followed-up for 5 years. Data on lifestyle factors, socioeconomic status, family diabetes history, and anthropometric measures were collected. MetS incidence was estimated in general population and subgroup of age, gender, and MetS components. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for MetS. A prediction nomogram was developed and checked for discrimination and calibration.
resultsDuring median follow-up of 5.14 years, the accumulate MetS incidence rate was 23.4% (95% CI: 22.2-24.7). The annual incidence rate (95% CI) was 52.9 (46.7-60.1) per 1000 person-years in general population and higher in women [56.6 (48.7-65.9)] than men [46.5 (36.9-59.3)]. The HRs (95% CI) for developing MetS were gender [females vs males: 2.04 (1.26-3.29)], advanced age [1.02 (1.01-1.04) per one year], waist circumference [1.08 (1.06-1.10) per one cm] and other obesity-related traits, and systolic blood pressure [1.02 (1.01-1.03) per one mmHg]. The prediction nomogram for MetS had a good discrimination (C-statistics = 0.742) and fit calibration (mean absolute error = 0.009) with a positive net benefit in the predicted probability thresholds between 0.13 and 0.70.
conclusionsThe study is the first to indicate an alarmingly high incidence of MetS in a middle-aged population in Vietnam. The nomogram with simply applicable variables would be useful to qualify individual risk of developing MetS.
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.