Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVera-Ponce, V.J.
dc.contributor.authorZuzunaga-Montoya, F.E.
dc.contributor.authorLoayza-Castro, J.A.
dc.contributor.authorRamirez-Ortega, A.P.
dc.contributor.authorTorres-Malca, J.R.
dc.contributor.authorGarcía-Lara, R.A.
dc.contributor.authorPaucar, C.R.I.
dc.contributor.authorValladares-Garrido, M.J.
dc.contributor.authorDe La Cruz-Vargas, J.A.
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-31T18:42:45Z
dc.date.available2025-10-31T18:42:45Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12805/5994
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Prediabetes is a significant public health concern due to its high risk of progressing to diabetes. Anthropometric measures of obesity, including body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) have been demonstrated as key risk factors in the development of prediabetes. However, there is a lack of clarity on the diagnostic accuracy and cut-off points of these measures. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of these anthropometric measures for their most effective use in identifying prediabetes. Methodology: A systematic review (SR) with metanalysis of observational studies was carried out. The search was conducted in four databases: Pubmed/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE. For the meta-analysis, sensitivity and specificity, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%) were calculated. Results: Among all the manuscripts chosen for review, we had four cross-sectional studies, and three were classified as cohort studies. The forest plots showed the combined sensitivity and specificity for both cross-sectional and cohort studies. For cross-sectional studies, the values were as follows: BMI had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.56, WC had a sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.58, and WHtR had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.73. In the cohort studies, the combined sensitivity and specificity were: BMI at 0.70 and 0.45, WC at 0.68 and 0.56, and WHtR at 0.68 and 0.56, respectively. All values are provided with 95% confidence intervals. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BMI, WC, and WHtR in identifying prediabetes. The results showed variations in sensitivity and specificity, with WHtR having the highest specificity in cross-sectional studies and BMI having improved sensitivity in cohort studies.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study did not receive funding from public or non-public organization.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherLifescience Global
dc.relation.ispartofurn:issn:1929-6029
dc.rightshttps://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.subjectSDG 3en_US
dc.subjectObesity, Metabolic Health, and Quality of Lifeen_US
dc.subjectObesity Risk Factors and Anthropometric Indicesen_US
dc.titleDiagnostic Accuracy of Anthropometric Markers of Obesity for Prediabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysisen_US
dc.typehttps://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2023.12.15
dc.subject.ocdehttps://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.18
dc.type.otherResearch article
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research
dc.type.versionhttps://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2