ArticleNutrition & metabolism2026
Middle-aged and older populations with different subtypes and definitions of metabolic syndrome face different future cardiovascular disease risks: results from a comparison of two Chinese definitions.
Article in Nutrition & metabolism, 2026. 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.
- The Use of Population Isolates to Identify Metabolic Syndrome's Genetic Aetiology.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDifferences in the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) across definitions and subtypes are unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences between the associations of MetS defined by the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) and the Writing Group of 2024 Chinese Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (WCGH) with CVD.
methodsThis cohort study included participants aged ≥ 40 years without cardiovascular disease from the 2011 survey of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. Individuals meeting different definitions of MetS based on criteria from the CDS and the WCGH were identified and followed up until 2020. Cox proportional risk models were used to analyze the association between different definitions and subtypes of MetS with CVD, and the predictive performance of the models was compared using the area under the curve (AUC) of the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and net reclassification improvement (NRI).
resultsBoth CDS and WCGH based MetS were significantly associated with increased CVD risk, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 1.51 (1.38 ~ 1.66) and 1.81 (1.66 ~ 1.99), respectively, both P < 0.001. 7 of the 16 subtypes of MetS based on CDS were not associated with CVD; all 5 subtypes of MetS based on WCGH were significantly associated with an increased risk of CVD. When participants were grouped based on meeting two definitions, compared with the CDS-WCGH- group, CVD risk increased most significantly in the CDS-WCGH + group (HR and 95%CI: 2.57 [1.94 ~ 3.39], P < 0.001), showed a significant increase in the CDS + WCGH + group (HR and 95%CI: 1.66 [1.51 ~ 1.83], P < 0.001), and showed no significant increase in the CDS + WCGH- group (HR and 95%CI: 0.93 [0.7 ~ 1.23], P = 0.606). The AUC of WCGH was higher than that of CDS at all time points. IDI and NRI analyses showed that the WCGH standard demonstrated significant improvements in risk reclassification and identification compared to CDS.
conclusionsThe association between MetS and CVD depends on the definition criteria and specific component combinations employed. The WCGH definition, which integrates diagnostic criteria for dyslipidemia, has been demonstrated to be more robust than the CDS.
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.