Comparison of metabolic syndrome prevalence using four definitions – a case study from Finland

Abstract

Background Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an increasing population health threat in Europe. Several MetS definitions are available. Our aim was to compare four different MetS definitions among Finnish adults, to assess their agreement and to evaluate the impact of the choice of the definition on the prevalence of MetS. Methods Data from FinHealth 2017, a cross-sectional population health survey, focusing on adults over 25 years were applied in the analysis (n = 5667). Measured data on anthropometrics, blood pressure, biomarkers and questionnaire data were used to classify the participants according to the definitions. The definitions chosen for the comparison were those by the World Health Organization (1998), National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (2004), International Diabetes Federation (2005) and Joint Interim Statement (2009). Results The four MetS definitions resulted in substantially different MetS prevalences among the Finnish adult population: 18% by WHO, 32% by NCEP-ATP III, 43% by IDF and 46% by JIS. Among all participants, only 13.5% were identified to have MetS according to all four definitions. The component of the definitions with highest prevalence was elevated blood pressure among men and central obesity among women. Prevalence of Mets increased with age; especially steeply among the youngest age groups. Due to varying cut-off points the prevalence of different components varied between the definitions. The agreement, estimated with kappa coefficients, ranged from 0.38 (WHO vs. IDF and WHO vs. JIS) to 0.95 (IDF vs. JIS). Conclusions The differences between observed MetS prevalences using the four different definitions were large. For cross-country comparisons as well as for trend analyses within a country, it is essential to use the same definition of MetS to avoid possible bias due to differences in used definitions as well as to use standardized measurement protocols in measuring different components of MetS. Key messages It is important to use standardized measurement protocols during data collection to achieve comparable data. For cross-country comparisons as well as for trend analyses within countries, it is essential to use identical MetS definitions to avoid possible biases.

Sex-Dependent Effects of the Intake of NOVA Classified Ultra-Processed Foods on Syndrome Metabolic Components in Brazilian Adults

“…Regarding the criterion established by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) [ 46 ], despite having the same cutoff points for the components, whereas the JIS [ 23 ] considers at least three altered parameters among any of the five components, the IDF includes abdominal obesity as a mandatory component alongside two other altered parameters to define MetS. These differences contribute to the identification of a greater number of individuals with high waist circumference and MetS with the criteria established by JIS, as indicated by several studies in the literature [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ].…”

Comparison of metabolic syndrome prevalence using three different definitions: A population-based study in Peru

“…However, in the study by Subías-Perié et al, they found that the IDF definition and the JIS definition had the best agreement (k = 1.000). Meanwhile, the Finnish work by Haverinen et al (22) found that the IDF and JIS definitions had almost perfect agreement (k = 0.97), while the agreement between the ATPIII and JIS definitions was strong (k = 0.80).…”