2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2008.07.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences in traditional and emerging cardiovascular risk factors of subjects discordantly classified by metabolic syndrome definitions of the International Diabetes Federation and the National Cholesterol Education Program

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
1
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
4
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding differs from other studies which reported similar prevalences in both sexes [28,35,38] or, on the contrary, a higher prevalence in women then in men [30,31,33,39]. As with other studies, prevalence of MS and of each of its components was observed to increase with age and be higher among the population with a low education level.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…This finding differs from other studies which reported similar prevalences in both sexes [28,35,38] or, on the contrary, a higher prevalence in women then in men [30,31,33,39]. As with other studies, prevalence of MS and of each of its components was observed to increase with age and be higher among the population with a low education level.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Table 4 (35) presents the results for total, circulatory disease, and cancer mortality (results of covariates did not show much significance for other causes and are omitted). The significance of these risk factors varies by age and cause.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… BP = blood pressure; CRP = C-reactive protein; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; N/A = not available. * Statistically significant results. † Missing categories are omitted because they are the same missing respondents as creatinine and diastolic blood pressure, respectively. ‡ Clinical high-risk cutoff points are sex specific: 102 cm for men and 88 cm for women (35). …”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, all definitions are to some degree suitable for the early detection of type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular diseases [13], [14]. Boronat et al showed that the IDF definition identifies a surplus of individuals whose cardiovascular risk profile, particularly regarding some non-traditional cardiovascular risk factors, is less adverse than that observed in subjects also diagnosed by the NCEP ATP III definition [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%