ArticleBMJ open2022
Potential of four definitions of metabolic syndrome to discriminate individuals with different 10-year cardiovascular disease risk scores: a cross-sectional analysis of an Iranian cohort.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its components according to altitude levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Nonlinear relationship between body fat percentage and NAFLD mediated by METS-IR: threshold effects and subgroup differences.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparing the association of two metabolic syndrome definitions, NCEP ATP III and IDF, with the risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: An analytical cross-sectional study.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2024Article
- Population-based pattern of medication use and prevalence of polypharmacy among patients with cardiovascular diseases: results of the Pars cohort study from Iran.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to reveal the potential of four different metabolic syndrome (Mets) definitions to differentiate subjects according to 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease.
designA cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort.
settingThis study used baseline data from the Shiraz Heart Study, a prospective cohort study in Shiraz, Iran. Participants were screened against Mets definitions including modified WHO, National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III), American Heart Association (AHA) and International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Also, Framingham risk score (FRS) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score were determined for each participant.
participantsA total number of 7225 participants of both genders entered the study. They were selected through defined family physician centres in different geographical areas. Urban residents with no migration plan were included. Those who were far from study centres or with disabilities that made them incapable to cooperate were excluded.
resultsParticipants were 47.68% (N=3445) male with the mean age of 52.13±8.00 years. The number of subjects with Mets identified by WHO was the lowest (N=1676), while the percentage of subjects with high risk score was the highest, 17.1% (N=282) in FRS and 9.8% (N=162) in ASCVD risk score. There were statistically significant differences in the mean risk scores between participants with and without Mets according to AHA, WHO and NCEP ATP III definitions (p<0.001). In IDF definition, the risk scores of subjects with Mets were not statistically different compared with peers without Mets, neither based on FRS (p=0.247) nor ASCVD risk score (p=0.193).
conclusionsIDF was not the appropriate definition for discrimination of subjects with Mets and/or those at high risk of future cardiovascular events. AHA, WHO and NCEP ATP III definitions were effective to discriminate subjects with Mets from peers without 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.