ReviewCureus2025
Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome Among Adults in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of cardiometabolic risk factors, such as insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, that is associated with a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. The westernization of life and demographic transition in Saudi Arabia have brought about a high incidence of MetS. The main objective of this study is to determine the pooled prevalence of MetS among healthy Saudi adults through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar) for articles issued between 2000 and 2025 containing data on the prevalence of MetS in healthy Saudi adults using International Diabetes Federation, Adult Treatment Panel III, or World Health Organization definitions of MetS. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and used the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to assess risk of bias. Cooperating writer principles and the inverse-variance model were used to calculate relative effects, with common-effect subgroup analysis according to age, sex, area of residence, and diagnostic criteria for MetS. The main outcomes from this study are that 17 articles met the inclusion criteria and seven were included in the meta-data synthesizer. The overall MetS prevalence was not significant (0.954, 95% confidence interval: 0.898-1.010) and had high heterogeneity (I
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.