4.7 Article

A metabolic syndrome severity score: A tool to quantify cardio-metabolic risk factors

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 189-195

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.006

关键词

Metabolic syndrome; Risk factors; Cardiovascular disease; Diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of cardio-metabolic risk factors and is associated with increased mortality. There is no standard, validated way to assess the severity of aggregated metabolic syndrome risk factors. Cardiovascular and diabetes risk factor data came from two studies conducted in Australia from 2006 to 2010 in adults aged 18 or above. In medication free adults, sex-specific clinical thresholds and Principal Component Analysis were used to develop a formula to calculate a metabolic syndrome severity score (MetSSS). These scores were compared to scores derived using the same process in subgroups by sex, age, medication status, and time. We also examined the MetSSS in relation to other known risk factors. In 2125 adults (57.6 +/- 14.7 years of age), the MetSSS ranged from 0 to 8.7 with a mean of 2.6. There were strong correlations (.95-.99) between the MetSSS in medication free adults and the MetSSS calculated from subgroups. MetSSS predicted medication initiation for hypertension, hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia over six months (OR = 1.31, 95% CI [1.00-1.70], per MetSSS unit, p =.043). Lower education, medication prescription, history of smoking and age were associated with higher MetSSS (all p < .05). Higher physical but not mental health quality of life was associated with lower MetSSS (p < .001). A standardized formula to measure cardio-metabolic risk factor severity was constructed and demonstrated expected relations with known risk factors. The use of the MetSSS is recommended as a measure of change within individuals in cardio-metabolic risk factors and to guide treatment and management. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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