Key result
The combined use of BMI and waist circumference identified a significantly higher prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypertension compared to using either indicator alone.
Why the study?
Does the combined use of BMI and waist circumference better predict cardiovascular risk factors compared to either measure alone in adult outpatients?
Cross-Sectional (n=150)
No
Does the combined use of BMI and waist circumference better predict cardiovascular risk factors compared to either measure alone in adult outpatients?
The combined use of BMI and waist circumference is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia than either measure alone.
Should not yet change outpatient risk screening; leaves open prospective validation of combined BMI and waist circumference for prediction.
Background and Objective: Obesity has emerged as a worldwide phenomenon affecting wealthy and middle income groups as well as residents of countries previously considered to be poor. Based on epidemiological data, the higher the BMI, the greater is the risk of developing chronic health problems like Hypertension, Diabetes mellitus, Coronary artery disease, certain cancers, arthritis, central obesity and Cerebrovascular disease. The major weakness of BMI is that it indicates excess body weight and not fat, and more importantly, does not count for the variation in the distribution of fat within the body. Central obesity in patients, predisposes them to major metabolic problems, cardiovascular events, dyslipidemia, and it cannot be measured by BMI alone. Hence, waist circumference (WC) becomes better indicator for central adiposity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Purva Bavikar (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Factors (n=150). Combined high BMI and Waist Circumference vs. BMI alone or Waist Circumference alone was evaluated on Prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypertension (p=<0.05). The combined use of BMI and waist circumference identified a significantly higher prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypertension compared to using either indicator alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: