Víctor Juan Vera-Ponce, Fiorella E. Zuzunaga-Montoya, Joan A. Loayza-Castro, Andrea P. Ramirez-Ortega, Jenny Raquel Torres-Malca, Rosa A. García-Lara, Cori Raquel Iturregui Paucar, Mario J. Valladares-Garrido, Jhony A. De La Cruz-Vargas
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of Anthropometric Markers of Obesity for Prediabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Víctor Juan Vera-Ponce, Fiorella E. Zuzunaga-Montoya, Joan A. Loayza-Castro, Andrea P. Ramirez-Ortega, Jenny Raquel Torres-Malca, Rosa A. García-Lara, Cori Raquel Iturregui Paucar, Mario J. Valladares-Garrido, Jhony A. De La Cruz-Vargas","doi":"10.6000/1929-6029.2023.12.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Prediabetes is a significant public health concern due to its high risk of progressing to diabetes. Anthropometric measures of obesity, including body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) have been demonstrated as key risk factors in the development of prediabetes. However, there is a lack of clarity on the diagnostic accuracy and cut-off points of these measures.
 Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of these anthropometric measures for their most effective use in identifying prediabetes.
 Methodology: A systematic review (SR) with metanalysis of observational studies was carried out. The search was conducted in four databases: Pubmed/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE. For the meta-analysis, sensitivity and specificity, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%) were calculated.
 Results: Among all the manuscripts chosen for review, we had four cross-sectional studies, and three were classified as cohort studies.
 The forest plots showed the combined sensitivity and specificity for both cross-sectional and cohort studies. For cross-sectional studies, the values were as follows: BMI had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.56, WC had a sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.58, and WHtR had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.73. In the cohort studies, the combined sensitivity and specificity were: BMI at 0.70 and 0.45, WC at 0.68 and 0.56, and WHtR at 0.68 and 0.56, respectively. All values are provided with 95% confidence intervals.
 Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BMI, WC, and WHtR in identifying prediabetes. The results showed variations in sensitivity and specificity, with WHtR having the highest specificity in cross-sectional studies and BMI having improved sensitivity in cohort studies.","PeriodicalId":73480,"journal":{"name":"International journal of statistics in medical research","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of statistics in medical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2023.12.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Prediabetes is a significant public health concern due to its high risk of progressing to diabetes. Anthropometric measures of obesity, including body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) have been demonstrated as key risk factors in the development of prediabetes. However, there is a lack of clarity on the diagnostic accuracy and cut-off points of these measures.
Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of these anthropometric measures for their most effective use in identifying prediabetes.
Methodology: A systematic review (SR) with metanalysis of observational studies was carried out. The search was conducted in four databases: Pubmed/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE. For the meta-analysis, sensitivity and specificity, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%) were calculated.
Results: Among all the manuscripts chosen for review, we had four cross-sectional studies, and three were classified as cohort studies.
The forest plots showed the combined sensitivity and specificity for both cross-sectional and cohort studies. For cross-sectional studies, the values were as follows: BMI had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.56, WC had a sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.58, and WHtR had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.73. In the cohort studies, the combined sensitivity and specificity were: BMI at 0.70 and 0.45, WC at 0.68 and 0.56, and WHtR at 0.68 and 0.56, respectively. All values are provided with 95% confidence intervals.
Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BMI, WC, and WHtR in identifying prediabetes. The results showed variations in sensitivity and specificity, with WHtR having the highest specificity in cross-sectional studies and BMI having improved sensitivity in cohort studies.