ArticlePloS one2026
Waist circumference versus BMI: A cross-sectional study comparing Cardiometabolic Risk association in the Nepalese Population.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObesity is a major cardiometabolic risk factor. Although body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) are established predictors of cardiometabolic risk, their predictive value may vary across ethnic groups. South Asians, including Nepalese individuals, exhibit a distinctive "thin-fat" phenotype characterized by increased central adiposity and higher body fat despite relatively normal BMI levels. Therefore, internationally validated anthropometric cutoffs may not accurately reflect cardiometabolic risk in the Nepalese population. Whether WC better predicts cardiometabolic risk than BMI in Nepalese individuals remains unclear. We conducted a comparative analysis of WC and BMI to evaluate their predictive ability for clinically relevant cardiometabolic outcomes.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study of 678 adults, BMI and waist circumference (WC) were evaluated as anthropometric indicators of cardiometabolic risk in the Nepalese population. Their associations were examined across six clinically relevant outcomes: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, fatty liver disease (FLD), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and dyslipidemia. Comparative performance of BMI and WC was assessed using correlation analysis with biochemical markers, multivariable logistic regression adjusting for key covariates, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to evaluate their relative predictive and discriminatory ability in this setting.
resultsBMI and waist circumference (WC) were strongly correlated (ρ = 0.75) but demonstrated distinct patterns in cardiometabolic associations. WC showed stronger correlation with triglycerides (ρ = 0.35 vs 0.24 for BMI) and was the only measure significantly associated with hypertension. Both BMI and WC were significantly associated with fatty liver disease (FLD), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and dyslipidemia; however, BMI generally showed higher odds ratios per unit increase compared to WC. Predictive performance was comparable between BMI and WC, with similar AUC values in the fair-to-acceptable range (0.6-0.7) across most outcomes. Notably, discrimination improved substantially (>0.8) when BMI and WC were combined with age and sex, yielding good predictive accuracy.
conclusionBMI and WC provide complementary information for cardiometabolic risk in the Nepalese population. Combined assessment with age and sex improves risk stratification, indicating that integrating both measures with calibrated thresholds enhances clinical prediction compared with using either alone.
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.