ArticlePloS one2024
Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome in nursing professionals: An accuracy study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing and evaluating machine learning-based risk models for metabolic syndrome among nurses: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome and Hypertriglyceridemic Waist Based on Sociodemographic Variables and Healthy Habits in Healthcare Workers: A Retrospective Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) represents a group of cardiovascular risk factors. This article aims to evaluate the accuracy of the tools of MetS diagnosis in Nursing professionals from Primary Health Care (PHC) in Bahia, Brazil. A cross-sectional study with a random sample selected according to essential health information for the diagnostic of MetS. For MetS diagnostic, we used EGIR, NCEP-ATPIII, AACE, IDF, Barbosa et al. (2006), and IDF/AHA/NHLBI (defined as gold standard) definition. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratio were estimated for each diagnostic tool and compared with the gold standard. Kappa statistic was used to determine the agreement between the diagnostic methods. One thousand one hundred and eleven nursing professionals were included in this study. Sensitivity varied from 15% to 95.1%, and specificity varied between 99.5% and 100%. IDF and Barbosa et al. (2006) definitions were more sensitive (95.1% and 92.8%, respectively), and EGIR, NCEP, ATP III, and IDF showed 100% specificity. IDF and Barbosa et al. (2006) use suitable metabolic syndrome identification and confirmation criteria. The highest agreement was found in the definition of the IDF, Barbosa et al. (2006) and the NCEP ATP III. Defining metabolic syndrome with a higher diagnostic accuracy could contribute to the screening and the early identification of nursing professionals with cardiovascular disease risk factors, which provide opportunities for appropriate prevention and treatment.
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.