ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2026
Risk factors for metabolic syndrome: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetabolic syndrome (MetS) - a cluster of conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and central obesity - affects 20-30% of adults globally and elevates risks for type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Although extensive research has been conducted on individual risk factors, a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence is urgently required to guide the development of targeted, multi-component prevention strategies.
methodsTo identify observational studies which assessed the association between MetS development and risk factors, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database were searched from inception to May 2025. A random or fix-effects model was utilized to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs), relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical heterogeneity across included studies was quantified using the I² index, where values > 50% were considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity. The Egger's test or funnel graph was used to assess the methodological quality.
resultsThis umbrella review systematically analyzed 72 meta-analyses from 7,367 unique articles to evaluate associations between 101 factors and MetS development. 76 positively correlated factors and 25 negatively correlated factors were identified from the included studies and categorized into five distinct domains: lifestyle behaviors, pre-existing diseases, individual characteristics, environmental exposures, and occupational factors. From the selected studies, the most significantly positive correlation with MetS was overweight and obesity. Parental history of MetS, gestational diabetes mellitus, high screen time, and shift work were also exhibited high degrees of correlation with MetS. In our study, we also identified several modifiable dietary factors exhibited negative correlations with MetS. High-fiber diet consumption, regular nut intake, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet had higher association with MetS.
conclusionsMetS pathophysiology is multifactorial. Comprehensive evidence shows that multiple distinct factors performed significantly associations with MetS. Unhealthy dietary patterns, sedentary behavioral patterns, and adverse occupational patterns are the primary modifiable associated factors for MetS. Despite the limited quality of current supporting evidence, targeted intervention strategies for these factors should be prioritized in public health policies to mitigate MetS at the population level. This review provides comprehensive prevention suggestions for high-risk groups.
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.