Key result
Visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio was superior to visceral fat area for predicting multiple metabolic risk factors in men with normal waist circumference (AUC 0.705 vs 0.649, P=0.028).
Why the study?
Does the visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio (VSR) predict multiple metabolic risk factors better than visceral fat area (VFA) or subcutaneous fat area (SFA) in subjects with normal waist circumference?
Cross-Sectional
Does the visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio (VSR) predict multiple metabolic risk factors better than visceral fat area (VFA) or subcutaneous fat area (SFA) in subjects with normal waist circumference?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.705 for VSR vs 0.649 for VFA in men
p-value: p=0.028
VSR is a useful indicator for identifying men with normal waist circumference who have multiple metabolic risk factors.
May aid metabolic risk stratification via fat ratio in normal-waist men; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Purpose: Visceral obesity has been recognized as a predictor of metabolic risk factors. However, few studies have evaluated the metabolic risks in subjects with normal waist circumference (WC). We aimed to examine if the visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio (VSR) has diagnostic value to identify multiple metabolic risk factors in subjects with normal WC, compared with visceral fat area (VFA) and subcutaneous fat area (SFA). Methods: This is a cross-sectional study in which we have compared mean VFA, SFA, and VSR according to each metabolic risk factor. We performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for VFA, SFA, and VSR to assess their accuracy in picking out two or more non-adipose factors for metabolic syndrome. Results: For each metabolic risk factor, mean VSRs were significantly different between groups (risk-absent group vs risk-present group) in men and women, except for men with low high-density lipoprotein. However, mean VFAs and SFAs showed no significant differences between groups. VSR showed superior diagnostic values in predicting at least two non-adipose metabolic risk factors in men and similar diagnostic value in women. Areas under ROC curves for VSR and VFA were 0.705 and 0.649 in men ( P =0.028) and 0.798 and 0.785 in women ( P =0.321). Conclusion: For men with a normal WC, VSR appeared to effectively predict the presence of multiple metabolic risk factors. Thus, VSR may serve as an indicator for identifying men who have a normal WC and multiple metabolic risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oh et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Multiple metabolic risk factors. Visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio (VSR) vs. Visceral fat area (VFA) and subcutaneous fat area (SFA) was evaluated on Accuracy in identifying two or more non-adipose factors for metabolic syndrome (AUC 0.705 for VSR vs 0.649 for VFA in men, p=0.028). Visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio was superior to visceral fat area for predicting multiple metabolic risk factors in men with normal waist circumference (AUC 0.705 vs 0.649, P=0.028).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: