2018
DOI: 10.1186/s13098-018-0373-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neck circumference and its association with cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: BackgroundRecently, neck circumference (NC) has been used to predict the risk of cardiometabolic factors. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine: (i) the sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) of NC to predict cardiometabolic risk factors and (ii) the association between NC and the risk of cardiometabolic parameters.MethodsA systematic search was conducted through PubMed/Medline, Institute of Scientific Information, and Scopus, until 2017 based on the search terms of metabo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
26
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(70 reference statements)
5
26
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we agree with Caro et al, who suggested that NC measurement may be an opportunity in clinical practice when it is difficult to measure WC [36]. Interestingly, in this study, NC was the only anthropometric parameter to show a significant correlation with total LDL-cholesterol, and this result is in line with a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [37]. On the basis of all our findings, NC, combined with BMI and WC or WHtR, should be used in clinical practice to quantify the cardio-metabolic risk in individuals with excess body weight.…”
Section: Plos Onesupporting
confidence: 93%
“…However, we agree with Caro et al, who suggested that NC measurement may be an opportunity in clinical practice when it is difficult to measure WC [36]. Interestingly, in this study, NC was the only anthropometric parameter to show a significant correlation with total LDL-cholesterol, and this result is in line with a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [37]. On the basis of all our findings, NC, combined with BMI and WC or WHtR, should be used in clinical practice to quantify the cardio-metabolic risk in individuals with excess body weight.…”
Section: Plos Onesupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Neck circumference has not showed a significant difference between older adults who had MetS in comparison with those who did not have MetS. Ataie-Jafari in a systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated a significant association between NC and other cardiometabolic risk factors; and pointed to a research in which an odds ratio of 11.53 and 7.69 for high NC in prediction of MetS presence in elderly men and women has been reported [21]. Baena et al study on people aged 35-74 years concluded that NC was significantly and independently associated with adverse cardiometabolic risk factors in adult men and women and also represented optimal values for identifying those individuals who might have a combination of two or three of the cardiometabolic risk factors including insulin resistance, low HDL, elevated blood pressure, and high triglycerides [22].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Neck circumference has been reported to be more accurate than BMI, because a significant correlation exists between neck circumference and abdominal obesity. Several studies have shown that in comparison with BMI and waist circumference, neck circumference may be independently associated with metabolic risk factors [21,22]. Conicity Index (CI) and Abdominal Volume Index (AVI) are also new indicators of abdominal obesity and seem to be good predictors for metabolic disorders [23].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relationships between WHtR, BMI, WC and WHR have been previously reported by various studies. [6,[8][9][10][11]20] Neck circumference as an indicator of cardiometabolic risk has also been reported, [21][22][23] but it is relatively recent and an emerging topic which should be better explored.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%