4.4 Article

Prevalence of hypertriglyceridemic waist and association with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

Journal

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 405-412

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2725

Keywords

hypertriglyceridemic waist; type 2 diabetes mellitus; prevalence; odds ratios

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81373074]
  2. Science and Technology Development Foundation of Shenzhen [JCYJ20120613112221107]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionA meta-analysis of studies assessing the prevalence of hypertriglyceridemic waist and an association with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Materials and methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, CQVIP and Wanfang databases were searched for studies of the prevalence of hypertriglyceridemic waist or association with risk of T2DM. Reference lists of each original article were also searched. A random-effects model was used to synthesize the combined prevalence and odds ratios. Publication bias and substantial heterogeneity were examined. ResultsTwenty-five eligible studies involving 93194 participants (93194 for prevalence and 34199 for odds ratios): 17 articles of prevalence, and 8 of both prevalence and risk of T2DM. Prevalence of hypertriglyceridemic waist ranged from 4% to 47%, with pooled prevalence of 18% (95% CI 13-23%), overall: 18% (95% CI 13-23%) for men and 19% (95% CI 13-24%) for women. Odds ratios ranged from 2.8 to 9.6 for T2MD in overall, with pooled odds ratios of 4.18 (95% CI 3.55-4.92), overall: 3.55 (95% CI 2.93-4.31) for men and 4.18 (95% CI 3.43-5.09) for women. Discussion/conclusionThe prevalence of hypertriglyceridemic waist has reached an alarming level and is closely associated with increased risk of T2DM in the general population, particularly among women and among brown-skinned men and women. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available