SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Changing diagnostic criteria and their impact on metabolic syndrome: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
Introduction: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) is difficult to define because there is no universal consensus on the definition of MetS and similarities and differences in definitions of the components and the architecture of the definitions can significantly affect the prevalence and individual classification. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of alternative definitions of MetS on prevalence, diagnostic agreement, reclassification, metabolic components and ethnicity-specific classification. Methods: A systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies met inclusion criteria if they included a comparison of 2 or more MetS diagnostic definitions in the same adult population. Information was gathered about study characteristics, diagnostic frameworks, thresholds for the components of MetS, prevalence of MetS, agreement between the two diagnostic methods, reclassification, and regional or ethnic specific criteria. A descriptive synthesis of finding was completed because of the significant degree of population and diagnostic heterogeneity. Results: Nine studies were included in the evidence synthesis. The prevalence of MetS was highly heterogeneous when the same population was assessed using different diagnostic criteria. The prevalence rates in Finnish adults ranged from 17.7% (WHO criteria) to 43.0% (JIS criteria), and the prevalence rates in the nationwide Iranian study ranged from 32.0% (IDF criteria) to 47.6% (JIS criteria). There was high diagnostic concordance between structurally similar definitions such as between IDF versus JIS in Finland (κ = 0.97) while lower levels of concordance were found between comparisons using WHO criteria. The most frequently reported factors associated with diagnostic discordance were central obesity and waist circumference. In addition, there were significant variations in prevalence of MetS depending on the region-specific adjustment of waist-circumference thresholds. Furthermore, the prevalence of MetS varied significantly by region-specific adjustment of waist circumference thresholds. Discussion: The prevalence of MetS from one diagnostic framework to another may not be directly comparable since it is highly definition-dependent. Waist thresholds may vary by ethnicity and this can be a significant factor in classification. Further research should include precise diagnostic criteria and thresholds, cross-classification data and validation of alternative definitions with clinically relevant outcomes.
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.