Journals / Eurasian Journal of Family Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

The Association of Metabolic Syndrome Components with Anthropometric Measurements

Pages
65–73
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, low-density lipoprotein was not correlated with neck circumference and high-density lipoprotein with waist-to-height ratio.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: This study aims to research the association of metabolic syndrome components with anthropometric measurements like arm circumference, neck circumference, hip circumference, waisthip ratio, and waist-to-height ratio, which are applied rarely.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 292 patients in November-December 2019.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, low-density lipoprotein was not correlated with neck circumference and high-density lipoprotein with waist-to-height ratio.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to research the association of metabolic syndrome components with anthropometric measurements like arm circumference, neck circumference, hip circumference, waisthip ratio, and waist-to-height ratio, which are applied rarely. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 292 patients in November-December 2019. The arm circumference, neck circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference, waist-hip ratio, waist-to-height ratio, and body mass index measurements of the patients were made. Glucose, highdensity lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, systolic, and diastolic blood pressure measurements were also recorded. The association between metabolic syndrome components and anthropometric measurements was analyzed. Results: Metabolic syndrome is diagnosed in 32.8% of the participants. According to body mass index, 18.6% of the patients were normal, 34.2% were overweight, and 47.2% were obese. There was a significant difference between the patients with and without metabolic syndrome in terms of laboratory parameters, blood pressure values, and anthropometric measurements. In the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome, optimal cut-off values for arm circumference, neck circumference, hip circumference, waisthip ratio, and waist-to-height ratio were determined as 31.75 (AUC=0.703), 34.85 (AUC=0.763), 113.75 (AUC=0.757), 0.90 (AUC=0.701), 0.61 (AUC=0.769) for females while they were 35.75 (AUC=0.573), 39.75 (AUC=0.795), 111.5 (AUC=0.607), 0.96 (AUC=0.888), 0.61 (AUC=0.888) for males respectively. Conclusion: A significant correlation was detected between arm circumference, neck circumference, hip circumference, waist-hip ratio, and waist-to-height ratio, and metabolic syndrome components. However, low-density lipoprotein was not correlated with neck circumference and high-density lipoprotein with waist-to-height ratio.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖRPELİOĞLU, S., AYPAK, C., ÖZDEMİR, Ç. (2022). The Association of Metabolic Syndrome Components with Anthropometric Measurements. Eurasian Journal of Family Medicine, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 65–73. https://ajindex.com/articles/508289

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Isomaa B, Almgren P, Tuomi T, Forsén B, Lahti K, Nissén M, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care 2001;24(4):683-9. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.4.683
  2. Tasan E. Identification, evaluation and epidemiology of obesity. Turkiye Klinikleri J Int Med Sci 2005;1(37):1- 4
  3. Tezcan S, Altintaş H, Sönmez R, Akinci A, Doğan B, Cakir B, et al Cardiovascular risk factor levels in a lower middle-class community in Ankara, Turkey. Trop Med Int Health 2003;8(7):660-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365- 3156.2003.01057.x
  4. Schneider HJ, Glaesmer H, Klotsche J, Böhler S, Lehnert H, Zeiher AM, et al. Accuracy of anthropometric indicators of obesity to predict cardiovascular risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92(2):589-94. doi: 10.1210/jc.2006-0254
  5. Luo Y, Ma X, Shen Y, Xu Y, Xiong Q, Zhang X, et al. Neck circumference as an effective measure for identifying cardio-metabolic syndrome: a comparison with waist circumference. Endocrine 2017;55(3):822- 830. doi: 10.1007/s12020-016-1151-y
  6. Altuntas Y, Gunbey KS, Bayazit AD, Argon A, Kozok K, Karaca C, et al. Evaluation of body anthropometry and secretion of early phase insulin in obesity. HaVHNL TÕS BOWHQL 1999;37(2):95-101
  7. Huang BX, Zhu MF, Wu T, Zhou JY, Liu Y, Chen XL, et al. Neck circumference, along with other anthropometric indices, has an independent and additional contribution in predicting fatty liver disease. PLoS One 2015;10(2):e0118071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118071
  8. Shi J, Yang Z, Niu Y, Zhang W, Li X, Zhang H, et al. Large mid-upper arm circumference is associated with metabolic syndrome in middle-aged and elderly individuals: a community-based study. BMC Endocr Disord 2020;20(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12902-020-00559-8
  9. Ogbera AO. Prevalence and gender distribution of the metabolic syndrome. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2010;2:1. doi: 10.1186/1758-5996-2-1. 10.Kozan O, Oguz A, Abaci A, Erol C, Ongen Z, Temizhan A, et al. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among Turkish adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 2007;61(4):548-53. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602554. 11.Day C. Metabolic syndrome, or what you will: definitions and epidemiology. Diab Vasc Dis Res 2007;4(1):32- 8. doi: 10.3132/dvdr.2007.003. 12.Oğuz A, Altuntaş Y, Karsidağ K, Güleç S, Temizhan A, Akalın AA, et al. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in Turkey. Obesity Reviews 2010;11:486. 13.Lumeng CN, Saltiel AR. Inflammatory links between obesity and metabolic disease. J Clin Invest 2011;121(6):2111-7. doi: 10.117