Key result
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with a metabolic syndrome prevalence of 57.5%, compared to 53.6% in the comparison group.
Why the study?
What is the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its associated factors in people with COPD compared to a general population?
Cross-Sectional
What is the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its associated factors in people with COPD compared to a general population?
Metabolic syndrome is highly prevalent in patients with COPD, highlighting the need for routine screening in this population.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Modest COPD-metabolic syndrome link observed; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies in European and Asian countries and does not always mirror the prevalence of the general population in a given country. We compared the prevalence of MetS in people with COPD with a comparison group in the United States. The National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey data set (2007-2010) was used to identify 94 people with COPD (mean age = 62). Data for demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained by interview and physical examination. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. The prevalence of MetS was 57.5% in the COPD group and 53.6% in the comparison group. In people with COPD, the factors most significantly associated with MetS were age, income level, marital status, and respiratory symptoms. People with COPD should be screened for MetS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease vs. Comparison group was evaluated on Prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with a metabolic syndrome prevalence of 57.5%, compared to 53.6% in the comparison group.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: