Evaluation of different anthropometric indices and association with metabolic syndrome in community-dwelling older adults: Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) program

Diagnostic Accuracy of Waist-to-Height Ratio, Waist Circumference, and Body Mass Index in Identifying Metabolic Syndrome and Its Components in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The study characteristics and outcome definitions of 17 included studies with a total of 74,520 participants are shown in Table 1 [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] ]. All studies were published from 2014 to 2021.…”

“…All studies were published from 2014 to 2021. Four studies were conducted in Brazil [ 26 , 35 , 37 , 39 ], 5 in China [ 28 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 42 ], 1 in Colombia [ 40 ], 2 in Iran [ 27 , 36 ], 2 in Japan [ 31 , 32 ], 1 in Singapore [ 41 ], 1 in Spain [ 29 ], and 1 in Thailand [ 38 ]. Sample sizes ranged from 159 to 24,215 participants.…”

“… Vidal Martins et al., 2015 [ 35 ] Brazil Cross-sectional study 349 (30.95%) 71 (males), 72 (females) WHtR Dyslipidemia Cardiovascular disease risk was calculated by the relation of TG levels with HDL-C levels. Marzban et al., 2022 [ 36 ] Iran Prospective cohort study 3000 (48.5%) 67.75 ± 7.10 WHtR, WC, BMI MetS MetS was defined as according to the NCEP-ATP III: High BP (elevated BP): ≥130/85 mmHg or known treatment for hypertension; Hypertriglyceridemia (high TG concentration): TG ≥150 mg/dL; Low HDL-C: <40 and < 50 mg/dL in males and females, respectively; Hyperglycemia (high glucose concentration): FBG ≥100 mg/dL or known treatment for diabetes; World Health Organization-Asian Pacific Region criteria for central obesity: WC ≥90 and ≥80 cm in males and females, respectively. Morais et al., 2018 [ 37 ] Brazil Cross-sectional study 402 (39.6%) 72.8 ± 7.0 (males), 72.8 ± 7.0 (females) WHtR, BMI MetS Elderly individuals were classified as syndromic according to the Joint Interim Statement (JIS) harmonizing criteria.…”

“…Nine studies provided the optimal cutoffs of WHtR in predicting MetS [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , 31 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 ]. The pooled results were outlined as follows ( Table 2 ): AUSROC was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.79), dOR was 7.65 (95% CI: 6.00, 9.75), sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.85), and specificity was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.77).…”

“…Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using QUADAS-2, and the results were shown in Table 3 . In terms of risk of bias, 14 studies (82.4%) [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] ] had no or only one domain judged as high risk. In terms of applicability concerns, only 2 studies (11.8%) [ 39 , 41 ] had one domain judged as high risk, while the other 15 studies (88.3%) [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , 40 , 41 ] were judged as low risk in all domains.…”