ArticleBMJ open2024
Evaluating the performance of a novel anthropometric index: weight adjusted for waist-to-height ratio (W-WHR) - for predicting cardiometabolic risk among adults in Addis Ababa.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the gap in obesity research: A consensus statement from the European Society for Clinical Investigation.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- The accuracy of anthropometric indices in detecting hypertension in Sudanese adults: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVarious anthropometric indices had been proposed to predict cardiometabolic risk, yet few were validated in the African population. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a novel anthropometric index-weight adjusted for waist-to-height ratio (W-WHR)-as a predictor of cardiometabolic risk among adults 18-64 years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; and compared its performance with other indices commonly used in the literature.
designCross-sectional study.
settingCommunity-based study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
participantsRandomly selected adults (n=600) completed serum lipid, blood pressure, blood glucose and anthropometric measurements. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes of interest were dyslipidaemia, hypertension and hyperglycaemia. Having at least one of the three outcomes was considered as a secondary outcome. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) used to measure the diagnostic accuracy of W-WHR and another 13 indices for predicting the primary and secondary outcomes. Optimal thresholds were determined using Youden's index.
resultsW-WHR demonstrated an acceptable diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve (AUC), 95% CI) for correctly classifying dyslipidaemia (0.80, 0.76 to 0.84), hypertension (0.74, 0.70 to 0.78), hyperglycaemia (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82) and the secondary outcome of interest (0.79, 0.75 to 0.83). Depending on the outcomes, thresholds between 32.6 and 36.7 concurrently maximised sensitivity and specificity of the index. ROC analysis indicated, W-WHR (AUC=0.80), abdominal volume index (AVI) (AUC=0.78) and waist circumference (WC) (AUC=0.78) for dyslipidaemia; W-WHR (AUC=0.74) and WC (AUC=0.74) for hypertension; and waist-to-height ratio (AUC=0.80) and body roundness index (AUC=0.80) for hyperglycaemia, had the highest diagnostic accuracy. Likewise, W-WHR (AUC=0.79), AVI (AUC=0.78) and WC (AUC=0.78) had better performance for the secondary outcome. Most indices have better utility among younger than older adults, and per cent body fat had the highest diagnostic accuracy among women (AUC 0.74-0.83).
conclusionW-WHR is a useful index for predicting cardiometabolic risk, especially among young adults.
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.