ArticleMedicine2026
Differences in prevalence and predictive value of metabolic syndrome: A comparative study of IDF, CDS, and NCEP ATP III criteria in young Chinese healthcare workers.
Article in Medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is common in Chinese adults, but evidence regarding its burden and cardiovascular relevance among young healthcare workers (HCWs) remains limited. Different MetS definitions can yield materially different prevalence estimates and risk classifications. This retrospective cross-sectional study included 420 HCWs aged 20 to 45 years who underwent mandatory annual health examinations at a tertiary hospital in China from 2022 to 2024. Demographic, occupational, anthropometric, and biochemical data were extracted from health examination and personnel records. MetS was defined using the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), revised National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III), and Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) criteria. Ten-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was estimated using the China-PAR equations, with elevated estimated risk defined as ≥10%. We compared MetS prevalence, sex differences, agreement among definitions, diagnostic performance using NCEP ATP III. Participants had a mean age of 32.4 ± 5.8 years, and 30.0% were men. MetS prevalence was 15.5%, 18.6%, and 10.2% according to IDF, NCEP ATP III, and CDS criteria, respectively, and was consistently higher in men. Agreement was almost perfect between IDF and NCEP ATP III (κ = 0.82) and substantial between IDF and CDS (κ = 0.64) and between NCEP ATP III and CDS (κ = 0.61). Using an internally reconstructed 2 × 2 table that preserves the reported prevalence counts and pairwise κ values, IDF showed sensitivity 78.2%, specificity 98.8%, PPV 93.8%, and NPV 95.2%, whereas CDS showed sensitivity 51.3%, specificity 99.1%, PPV 93.0%, and NPV 89.9% relative to NCEP ATP III. These reconstructed diagnostic-performance values require verification against the original participant-level data before submission. MetS defined by any criterion was strongly associated with elevated China-PAR-estimated risk, with adjusted odds ratio of 6.5, 7.1, and 5.1 for IDF, NCEP ATP III, and CDS, respectively. atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-risk AUCs were 0.80, 0.82, and 0.76, respectively. In this single-center cohort of young Chinese HCWs, estimated MetS prevalence differed substantially by diagnostic definition. IDF and NCEP ATP III identified more cases than CDS and showed stronger mutual agreement. The observed associations with China-PAR-estimated risk support the potential value of MetS assessment within occupational health screening.
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.