ArticleObesity pillars2026
Normal-weight obesity and adverse health outcomes in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Article in Obesity pillars, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Normal body mass index (BMI) can coexist with excess adiposity, a phenotype termed normal-weight obesity (NWO). Female-specific evidence remains fragmented; we synthesized associations between NWO and female adverse health outcomes. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 28, 2026, for eligible female-specific studies comparing NWO with normal-weight lean/non-obese controls. Odds ratios (OR) and other effect ratios were synthesized separately; continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MDs). Outcomes reported in ≥3 studies were pooled with random-effects models using Paule-Mandel between-study variance and Hartung-Knapp confidence intervals (CIs) with an ad hoc correction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposures tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute cross-sectional checklist. Results: Twenty studies (200,461 women with normal BMI) were included; 17 were cross-sectional. NWO was associated with metabolic syndrome (number of studies [k] = 4; OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.55), abdominal obesity (k = 3; OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.22 to 10.70), higher triglycerides (k = 7; MD 10.99 mg/dL, 95% CI 2.03 to 19.94), total cholesterol (k = 6; MD 6.86 mg/dL, 95% CI 2.60 to 11.11), and total cholesterol-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio (k = 3; MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.42). Associations with fasting glucose, diabetes, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), HDL-C, fasting insulin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, and blood pressure were uncertain. Hard clinical outcomes were sparse, and two of three longitudinal studies had high risk of bias. Conclusion: Among women with normal BMI, excess adiposity is associated with a less favorable cardiometabolic phenotype, most consistently metabolic syndrome and selected lipid measures. Evidence for diabetes, blood pressure, cardiovascular events, mortality, cancer, and reproductive or functional outcomes remains limited. Standardized NWO definitions and prospective female-specific studies are needed. (PROSPERO: CRD420261408853).
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.