2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2006.04.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How well does the metabolic syndrome defined by five definitions predict incident diabetes and incident coronary heart disease in a Chinese population?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
51
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
2
51
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One point of interest of the present analysis is that despite a shorter follow-up period than in other studies, the impact of metabolic syndrome on all-cause mortality was confirmed with similar intensity. Another point is that the results observed in the present study showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality with the NCEP 2001 definition compared with the other two definitions, confirming the results found by Katzmarzyk et al (9), Lawlor et al (7), and Wang et al (8).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One point of interest of the present analysis is that despite a shorter follow-up period than in other studies, the impact of metabolic syndrome on all-cause mortality was confirmed with similar intensity. Another point is that the results observed in the present study showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality with the NCEP 2001 definition compared with the other two definitions, confirming the results found by Katzmarzyk et al (9), Lawlor et al (7), and Wang et al (8).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Recently, a few studies have suggested that the IDF definition is similar to the NCEP definition for women aged Ͼ60 years with coronary heart disease (CHD) (7), is not associated with CHD mortality and morbidity in a Chinese population (8), or is similar to the NCEP and NCEP-R definitions for the impact on all-cause mortality (9) and for the impact on cardiovascular mortality in European men but not in women (10).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this context, the present study adds data to the literature by comparing the performance of the most widely promoted definitions with and without concomitant insulin resistance. Prior data from MexicanAmerican, white, black, and Chinese samples suggest that ATP III and IDF metabolic syndrome definitions confer roughly equivalent risk for diabetes (9,10), an observation that we confirm in a large, unselected community-based white sample. We extend this observation to show that metabolic syndrome alone, but perhaps not the uncommon insulin resistance alone, increases risk for diabetes and that metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance have additive effects increasing diabetes risk.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…There are few population-based data comparing how well the ATP III or IDF metabolic syndrome definitions identify subjects with insulin resistance (8) or comparing how well ATP III, IDF, or EGIR metabolic syndrome definitions predict subsequent risk for incident diabetes (9,10) or CVD (11)(12)(13). In addition, while it has been implied that the presence of the metabolic syndrome is a surrogate for the presence of insulin resistance, there are few data on diabetes or CVD risk associated with metabolic syndrome in the absence of insulin resis-tance or in the presence of both metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance.…”
Section: Diabetes Care 30:1219 -1225 2007mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results show that the prevalence of each of the 10 possible combinations of three MetS risk factor components using the modATPIII MetS definition varies from 0 to 10.5%. It has been shown previously with all MetS definitions, that there is a variable association between the individual MetS components and outcomes such as incident coronary heart disease, incident diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases [15,16]. In addition there is accumulating evidence that certain combinations of risk factors are associated with greater cardiovascular risk than other combinations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%