4.5 Article

Gender differences in the association between anthropometric indices of obesity and blood pressure in Japanese

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 75-80

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1291/hypres.29.75

关键词

blood pressure; epidemiology; gender; hypertension; obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate which of four anthropometric variables of obesity has the strongest association with blood pressure (BID), and to investigate whether there are gender differences in these relationships in Asian adults, we evaluated the associations of four anthropometric variables, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and waist-to-height ratio, with BP and the prevalence of hypertension in a cross-sectional study. A total of 4,557 employees of a metal-products factory in Toyama, Japan (2,935 men and 1,622 women, aged 35 to 59 years) were included in the study. Waist circumference in men and BMI in women had the strongest associations with BP. As for the age-adjusted rate ratio (RR) of the prevalence of hypertension for one standard deviation increase in each anthropometric variable, RR was the highest for waist circumference in men (RR, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58), and for BMI in women (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.38-1.88). The associations of waist circumference in men and BMI in women remained significant after adjustment for each of the other variables. The associations of waist-to-height ratio with BP and the prevalence of hypertension were a little weaker than those of waist circumference for both men and women. In conclusion, among four anthropometric variables of obesity-i.e., BMI, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and waist-to-height ratio-waist circumference had the strongest association with BID and the prevalence of hypertension in men and BMI had the strongest association with BP and hypertension in women. Waist circumference in men and BMI in women should be given more importance in the screening of and guidelines on hypertension in Asians.

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

4.5
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