4.3 Review

Metabolic syndrome as a predictor of type2 diabetes, and its clinical interpretations and usefulness

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 334-343

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdi.12075

关键词

Metabolic syndrome; Risk factor; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic syndrome is defined as a cluster of glucose intolerance, hypertension, dyslipidemia and central obesity with insulin resistance as the source of pathogenesis. Although several different combinations of criteria have been used to define metabolic syndrome, a recently published consensus recommends the use of ethnic-specific criteria, including waist circumference as an indicator of central obesity, triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol as indicators of dyslipidemia, and blood pressure greater than 130/85 mmHg. The definition of dysglycemia, and whether central obesity and insulin resistance are essential components remain controversial. Regardless of the definition, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome is increasing in Western and Asian countries, particularly in developing areas undergoing rapid socioenvironmental changes. Numerous clinical trials have shown that metabolic syndrome is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes mellitus and all-cause mortality. Therefore, metabolic syndrome might be useful as a practical tool to predict these two major metabolic disorders. Comprehensive management of risk factors is very important to the improvement of personal and public health. However, recent studies have focused on the role metabolic syndrome plays as a risk factor for CVD; its importance in the prediction of incident diabetes is frequently overlooked. In the present review, we summarize the known evidence supporting metabolic syndrome as a predictor for type 2 diabetes mellitus and CVD. Additionally, we suggest how metabolic syndrome might be useful in clinical practice, especially for the prediction of diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据