Key result
WHtR yields ~73% specificity for identifying prediabetes while BMI maximizes diagnostic sensitivity.
Why the study?
Although anthropometric measures of obesity are key risk factors for prediabetes, there is a lack of clarity on their diagnostic accuracy and cut-off points.
What is the diagnostic accuracy of BMI, WC, and WHtR for identifying prediabetes?
Meta-Analysis (n=59,459)
What is the diagnostic accuracy of BMI, WC, and WHtR for identifying prediabetes?
WHtR offers the highest specificity in cross-sectional assessments, while BMI provides better sensitivity in cohort studies for identifying prediabetes.
Supports context-specific selection of WHtR or BMI for prediabetes screening; leaves open prospective validation in clinical practice.
Introduction: Prediabetes is a significant public health concern due to its high risk of progressing to diabetes. Anthropometric measures of obesity, including body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) have been demonstrated as key risk factors in the development of prediabetes. However, there is a lack of clarity on the diagnostic accuracy and cut-off points of these measures. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of these anthropometric measures for their most effective use in identifying prediabetes. Methodology: A systematic review (SR) with metanalysis of observational studies was carried out. The search was conducted in four databases: Pubmed/Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE. For the meta-analysis, sensitivity and specificity, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%) were calculated. Results: Among all the manuscripts chosen for review, we had four cross-sectional studies, and three were classified as cohort studies. The forest plots showed the combined sensitivity and specificity for both cross-sectional and cohort studies. For cross-sectional studies, the values were as follows: BMI had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.56, WC had a sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.58, and WHtR had a sensitivity of 0.63 and specificity of 0.73. In the cohort studies, the combined sensitivity and specificity were: BMI at 0.70 and 0.45, WC at 0.68 and 0.56, and WHtR at 0.68 and 0.56, respectively. All values are provided with 95% confidence intervals. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BMI, WC, and WHtR in identifying prediabetes. The results showed variations in sensitivity and specificity, with WHtR having the highest specificity in cross-sectional studies and BMI having improved sensitivity in cohort studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vera-Ponce et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Prediabetes (n=59,459). Anthropometric markers of obesity (BMI, WC, WHtR) vs. Gold standard diagnostic tests (FPG, OGTT, HbA1c) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy of waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) for prediabetes in cross-sectional studies (Sensitivity 0.63, Specificity 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.70, 0.70-0.75). Waist-to-height ratio demonstrated the highest specificity (0.73) in cross-sectional studies, while body mass index showed the highest sensitivity (0.70) in cohort studies for identifying prediabetes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: