4.3 Article

Anthropometric indicators of obesity for identifying cardiometabolic risk factors in a rural Bangladeshi population

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 361-368

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdi.12053

Keywords

Anthropometric indicators; Cardiometabolic risk factors; Obesity

Funding

  1. University of Oslo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims/Introduction: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the predictive ability of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) and body fat percentages (BF%) for the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors, namely type 2 diabetes (DM), hypertension (HTN), dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome (MS). Materials and Methods: A total of 2293 subjects aged >= 20 years from rural Bangladesh were randomly selected in a population-based, cross-sectional survey. The association of anthropometric indicators with cardiometabolic risk conditions was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for DM, HTN, dyslipidemia and MS. Results: Area under the curve cut-off values showed that the association of WHR, BF% and WC was higher than that for other indices for DM, HTN and MS, respectively, for both sexes, and WHtR for men and WHR for women for dyslipidemia. The ORs were highest for WHR for DM and WC for MS for both sexes, and WHtR for men and WC for women for HTN and dyslipidemia, respectively. The optimal cut-off values for obesity for the present study in men and women showed BMIs of 22 and 22.8 kg/m(2), WHRs of 0.93 and 0.87, WHtRs of 0.52 and 0.54, BF% of 21.4 and 32.4%, and WCs of 82 and 81 cm, except for MS, which were 90 for men and 80 for women. Conclusions: Compared with BMI, measures of central obesity, particularly WHR, WC, WHtR and BF%, showed a better association with obesity-related cardiometabolic risk factors for both sexes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available