4.4 Article

A Comparison of the Prevalence of the MS and Its Complications Using Three Proposed Definitions in Korean Subjects

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 12, Pages 1732-1735

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.02.027

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Samsung Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea [SBRI C-A8-216-1]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To compare the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome (MS) using 3 definitions (World Health Organization [WHO], Adult Treatment Panel [ATP III], and International Diabetes Foundation [IDF]) in Korean subjects, we reviewed 6,196 participants (3,436 men and 2,760 women; mean age 51 +/- 11 and 49 +/- 1.2 years) who underwent a general health status evaluation and had findings of MS components, including serum insulin and microalbuminuria. The prevalence of the MS according to the WHO, ATP III, and IDF definitions (male and female) was 17.1% and 10.3%, 26% and 19.3%, and 22% and 25.4%, respectively. The degrees of agreement according to the k statistics (WHO and IDF, WHO and ATP III, and IDF and ATP III) were modest in both genders. The diagnosis of the MS was associated with a high odds ratio for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease but with a significantly varying prevalence of a Framingham risk score of >10%. The MS was seen in 10% to 30% of otherwise healthy 'middle-age Korean subjects presenting for health screening and the prevalence varied widely according to the criteria of its definition. The effect of the diagnosis of the MS in terms of cardiovascular risk varies significantly according to the criteria used. In conclusion, a universally accepted definition of the MS is needed for clinical and population-based studies. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2009;103:1732-1735)

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