4.3 Article

Optimal cutoff points for HOMA-IR and QUICKI in the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A population based study

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 269-274

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.11.019

Keywords

Diagnostic index; Metabolic syndrome; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Homeostatic model assessment index; Quantitative insulin sensitivity check index

Funding

  1. Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center (GILDRC) of Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The present study was carried out to determine the optimal cutoff points for homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICK') in the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (Mets) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Methods: The baseline data of 5511 subjects aged >= 18 years of a cohort study in northern Iran were utilized to analyze. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine the discriminatory capability of HOMA-IR and QUICK' in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD. Youden index was utilized to determine the optimal cutoff points of HOMA-IR and QUICKI in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD. Results: The optimal cutoff points for HOMA-IR in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD were 2.0 [sensitivity = 64.4%, specificity = 66.8%] and 1.79 [sensitivity = 66.2%, specificity = 62.2%] in men and were 2.5 [sensitivity = 57.6%, specificity = 67.9%] and 1.95 [sensitivity = 65.1%, specificity = 54.7%] in women respectively. Furthermore, the optimal cutoff points for QUICK in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD were 0343 [sensitivity = 63.7%, specificity = 67.8%] and 0.347 [sensitivity = 62.9%, specificity = 65.0%] in men and were 0331 [sensitivity = 55.7%, specificity = 70.7%] and 0.333 [sensitivity = 53.2%, specificity = 67.7%] in women respectively. Conclusion: Not only the optimal cutoff points of HOMA-IR and QUICK were different for MetS and NAFLD, but also different cutoff points were obtained for men and women for each of these two conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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