Including selective metabolic components in current diagnostic criteria does not improve discriminative validity for metabolic syndrome: a risk score approach

1Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether including additional metabolic components to the current five-marker system can improve the discriminative validity for diagnosing metabolic syndrome (MetS). Methods: This longitudinal cohort study included data from subjects that had completed at least three health examinations during a 5-year period. The study outcome was the onset of MetS. Sociodemographic and biochemical variables were recorded for all subjects so that the adjusted relative risks (ARRs) could be calculated for 11 metabolic components. Risk scores for the development of MetS based on the ARR values were determined. The sums of the risk scores of different component combinations were used to conduct a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of MetS diagnosis. Results: A total of 3368 individuals with complete data was analysed. The ARRs of the 11 metabolic components were all statistically significant. According to ROC analysis, although good discriminative validity (area under the curve [AUC] range, 0.954–0.976) could be achieved for MetS diagnosis by using either all 11 or combinations of six metabolic components (the five current components plus one extra component), the current five metabolic components used for diagnosis had the best discriminative validity (AUC = 0.977). Conclusion: The current five metabolic components used for the diagnosis of MetS still represent the best combination with the highest discriminative validity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chang, H. C., Chen, S. P., & Yang, H. J. (2019). Including selective metabolic components in current diagnostic criteria does not improve discriminative validity for metabolic syndrome: a risk score approach. Journal of International Medical Research, 47(3), 1298–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518822919

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free