ArticleBMJ open2024
Independent association of metabolic syndrome severity score and risk of diabetes: findings from 18 years of follow-up in the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study.
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 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.
- Utility of the US Metabolic Syndrome Severity Calculator for Group-Level Comparison in Estonia.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Quantifying Metabolic Syndrome Severity: Methodological Evolution, Clinical Validation, and Translational Perspectives.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the association between age-specific and sex-specific continuous metabolic syndrome severity score (cMetS-S) and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Additionally, the study aimed to assess the added value of cMetS-S in predicting T2DM compared with traditional MetS criteria.
designThe study used a longitudinal cohort design, following participants for 18 years.
settingThe research was conducted within the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study, a community-based study in Tehran, Iran.
participantsA total of 6957 participants aged 20-60 years were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: The cMetS-S of each participant was determined using age-specific and sex-specific equations and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyse the association between cMetS-S and T2DM using continuous and quantile approaches. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measure was the association between cMetS-S and the development of T2DM during the 18-year follow-up.
resultsA total of 1124 T2DM cases were recorded over 18 years of follow-up. In the fully adjusted model, a 1-SD increase in the cMetS-S was associated with future T2DM (HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.54 to 1.91). Men and women had HRs of 1.65 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.95) and 1.83 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.10) for T2DM per 1-SD increase in cMetS-S, respectively. Higher cMetS-S was associated with increased risk of diabetes in both prediabetic (HR 1.42;95% CI 1.23 to 1.64) and normoglycaemic individuals (HR 2.11;95% CI 1.76 to 2.54); this association was more significant in normoglycaemic individuals. Unlike the traditional-based MetS definitions, the cMetS-S improved diabetes prediction (p<0.001).
conclusionsThe cMetS-S is strongly associated with future diabetes in prediabetic and normoglycaemic individuals independent of MetS components during a long term. As the relationship between cMetS-S and T2DM is more pronounced in normoglycaemic individuals than in those with pre-diabetes, implementing the evaluation of cMetS-S can serve as an early identification tool for individuals at risk of T2DM prior to the onset of pre-diabetes.
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.