Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36558476›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

The Circadian Syndrome Is a Significant and Stronger Predictor for Cardiovascular Disease than the Metabolic Syndrome-The NHANES Survey during 2005-2016.

Zumin Shi, Jaakko Tuomilehto, Noga Kronfeld-Schor, George Alberti, Naftali Stern, Assam El-Osta, Zhonglin Chai, Carmel Bilu, Haim Einat, Paul Zimmet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The British journal of nutrition · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.

Zumin ShiHuman Nutrition Department, College of Health Sciences, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0002-3099-3299
Jaakko TuomilehtoDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Noga Kronfeld-SchorSchool of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
George AlbertiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK.
Naftali SternSagol Center for Epigenetics of Aging and Metabolism, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Assam El-OstaDepartment of Diabetes, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7968-7375
Zhonglin ChaiDepartment of Diabetes, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8182-8579
Carmel BiluSchool of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Haim EinatSchool of Behavioural Sciences, Tel Aviv-Yaffo Academic College, Tel Aviv 6818211, Israel.
Paul ZimmetSagol Center for Epigenetics of Aging and Metabolism, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Tel Aviv University · ILMonash University · AUAcademic College of Tel Aviv-Yafo · ILChinese University of Hong Kong · HKImperial College London · GBQatar University · QAUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study aimed to compare the predictive value of the Circadian Syndrome (CircS) and Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) for cardiovascular disease (CVD). We used data of 12,156 adults aged ≥20 years who attended National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2016. Mortality was obtained from the registry updated to 2019. The CircS was defined based on components of the MetS, in addition to short sleep and depression. Both the MetS and CircS were directly associated with self-reported history of CVD. The odds ratios for prevalent CVD associated with the CircS and MetS, respectively, were 2.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.21-3.86) and 3.20 (2.38-4.30) in men, and 3.27 (2.34-4.59) and 3.04 (2.15-4.30) in women. The CircS had a better predictive power for prevalent CVD than that of MetS, as indicated by the higher positive predictive value (PPV); in men, the PPV for prevalent CVD with CircS was 23.1% and with MetS 20.9%, and in women these were 17.9% vs. 16.4%, respectively. However, the PPV of the CircS and MetS did not differ for the CVD mortality prediction. Women with CircS alone had a higher risk for both prevalent CVD and CVD mortality than those with MetS alone. In conclusion, the CircS is a significant and stronger predictor for CVD than the MetS in US adults.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesMetabolic SyndromeAdultFemaleHumansMaleNutrition SurveysPredictive Value of TestsRisk Factorsadultscardiovascular diseasecircadian syndromemetabolic syndromeNHANES

Identifiers

PMID36558476
PMCPMC9785664
OpenAlexW4311598102

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.