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":"糖尿病前期肥胖人体测量指标的诊断准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
导读:前驱糖尿病是一个重要的公共卫生问题,因其发展为糖尿病的高风险。肥胖的人体测量指标,包括身体质量指数(BMI)、腰围(WC)和腰高比(WHtR)已被证明是糖尿病前期发展的关键危险因素。然而,这些措施的诊断准确性和分界点尚不明确。
目的:确定这些人体测量指标的诊断准确性,以最有效地识别前驱糖尿病。方法学:对观察性研究进行了系统评价(SR)和荟萃分析。检索在四个数据库中进行:Pubmed/Medline、SCOPUS、Web of Science和EMBASE。对于meta分析,计算敏感性和特异性及其95%置信区间(CI 95%)。
结果:在所有入选审查的稿件中,我们有4篇横断面研究,3篇被归类为队列研究。
森林图显示了横断面和队列研究的敏感性和特异性。横断面研究的值如下:BMI的敏感性为0.63,特异性为0.56;WC的敏感性为0.59,特异性为0.58;WHtR的敏感性为0.63,特异性为0.73。在队列研究中,综合敏感性和特异性分别为:BMI为0.70和0.45,WC为0.68和0.56,WHtR为0.68和0.56。所有的值都有95%的置信区间。
结论:本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了BMI、WC和WHtR在识别前驱糖尿病中的诊断准确性。结果显示敏感性和特异性存在差异,横断面研究中WHtR具有最高的特异性,队列研究中BMI具有更高的敏感性。
Diagnostic Accuracy of Anthropometric Markers of Obesity for Prediabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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.