Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360688›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022

Body Roundness Index and Waist-Hip Ratio Result in Better Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification: Results From a Large Chinese Cross-Sectional Study.

Ying Li, Yongmei He, Lin Yang, Qingqi Liu, Chao Li, Yaqin Wang, Pingting Yang, Jiangang Wang, Zhiheng Chen, Xin Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Subjective Evaluation of Female Adult Body Fat Distribution: A Scoping Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ying LiDepartment of Health Management, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yongmei HeDepartment of Health Management, Aerospace Center Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lin YangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Qingqi LiuDepartment of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.
Chao LiHunan Key Laboratory for Bioanalysis of Complex Matrix Samples, Changsha, China.
Yaqin WangDepartment of Health Management, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Pingting YangDepartment of Health Management, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jiangang WangDepartment of Health Management, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Zhiheng ChenDepartment of Health Management, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xin HuangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The appropriate optimal anthropometric indices and their thresholds within each BMI category for predicting those at a high risk of cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVDRFs) among the Chinese are still under dispute. Objectives: We aimed to identify the best indicators of CVDRFs and the optimal threshold within each BMI category among the Chinese. Methods: Between 2012 and 2020, a total of 500,090 participants were surveyed in Hunan, China. Six anthropometric indices including waist circumference (WC), a body shape index (ABSI), body roundness index (BRI), waist-hip ratio (WHR), hip circumference (HC), and waist-height ratio (WHtR) were evaluated in the present study. Considered CVDRFs included dyslipidaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The associations of anthropometrics with CVDRFs within each BMI category were evaluated through logistic regression models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to assess the predictive abilities. Results: For the presence of at least one CVDRFs, the WHR had the highest AUROC in overweight [0.641 (95%CI:0.638, 0.644)] and obese [0.616 (95%CI:0.609, 0.623)] men. BRI had the highest AUROC in underweight [0.649 (95%CI:0.629, 0.670)] and normal weight [0.686 (95%CI:0.683, 0.690)] men. However, the BRI had the highest discrimination ability among women in all the BMI categories, with AUROC ranging from 0.641 to 0.727. In most cases, the discriminatory ability of WHtR was similar to BRI and was easier to calculate; therefore, thresholds of BRI, WHR, and WHtR for CVDRFs identification were all calculated. In men, BRI thresholds of 1.8, 3.0, 3.9, and 5.0, WHtR thresholds of 0.41, 0.48, 0.53, and 0.58, and WHR thresholds of 0.81, 0.88, 0.92, and 0.95 were identified as optimal thresholds across underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese populations, respectively. The corresponding BRI values in women were 1.9, 2.9, 4.0, and 5.2, respectively, and WHtR were 0.41, 0.48, 0.54, and 0.59, while the WHR values were 0.77, 0.83, 0.88, and 0.90. The recommended BRI, WHtR, or WHR cut-offs could not statistically differentiate high-risk CKD or hypercholesterolemia populations. Conclusions: We found that BRI and WHR were superior to other indices for predicting CVD risk factors, except CKD or hypercholesterolemia, among the Chinese.

Indexed as

ABSIBRIcardiovascular disease risk factorship circumferencewaist circumferenceWHRWHtR

Identifiers

PMID35360688
PMCPMC8960742

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.