4.4 Article

Associations of obesity with osteoporosis and metabolic syndrome in Korean postmenopausal women: a cross-sectional study using national survey data

期刊

ARCHIVES OF OSTEOPOROSIS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-019-0615-0

关键词

Metabolic syndrome; Obesity; Osteoporosis; Postmenopausal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a representative sample of 3058 Korean postmenopausal women, we studied which types of obesity were more or less desirable for developing concomitant osteoporosis and metabolic syndrome (MS), with the goal of helping clinicians identify steps to reduce patients' risk. Different definitions of obesity showed different relationships with osteoporosis and MS in this population.PurposeTo examine sample characteristics, prevalence, and the risk of osteoporosis and metabolic syndrome among four groups of postmenopausal women classified by obesity.MethodsData from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed using the Rao-Scott chi-square test, analysis of variance, and multinomial logistic regression analysis. The four groups included body mass index (BMI)-based obese, waist circumference (WC)-based obese, BMI-, and WC-based obese, and non-obese women, using BMI and WC cutoffs for obesity of 25kg/m(2) and 80cm, respectively.ResultsThe prevalence of osteoporosis and MS was 40.8% and 48.5%, respectively. Age, socioeconomic status, smoking status, and hormone therapy use differed among the obese groups. The odds ratios of simultaneously having both osteoporosis and MS in the BMI- and WC-based obese, BMI-based obese, WC-based obese, and non-obese groups were 7.39 (95% confidence interval [CI]=4.83-11.31), 0.74 (95% CI=0.27-1.98), 7.07 (95% CI=4.72-10.58), and 1, respectively.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate the most and the least desirable types of obesity in terms of risk for both osteoporosis and MS. Public health practitioners may consider the type of obesity to reduce or prevent both conditions in postmenopausal women.

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

4.4
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