ArticleInternational journal of obesity (2005)2026
Obesity prevalence: comparison of traditional and new classification approaches in a Swiss population-based study (2005-2024).
Article in International journal of obesity (2005), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveObesity has traditionally been defined using body mass index (BMI), but this may overlook central adiposity and related metabolic risks. In 2025, new guidelines recommended adding anthropometric measures. This study analyzed obesity prevalence comparing definitions and their associations with cardiovascular and metabolic diseases.
methodsUsing a population-based study in Geneva, Switzerland (2005-2024), we measured the prevalence of obesity based on the traditional and new definitions. Reclassification patterns were examined, and associations with diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were assessed via logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses.
resultsAmong 14,658 individuals (mean age 48.2 ± 13.7; 51.4% women), obesity prevalence ranged from 10.8% to 39.9% using new classifications, compared to 13.1% with BMI alone (p < 0.001). Reclassifications differed among men and women and with age. New classifications demonstrated superior discriminative performance for the detection of cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes compared to BMI alone. BMI + waist-to-hip ratio showed the strongest associations with diabetes (aOR 4.61; 3.87-5.47), and hypertension (aOR 3.61; 3.18-4.09), while waist-to-hip and waist-to-height ratio showed the strongest association with dyslipidemia (aOR 1.95; 1.75-2.16).
conclusionAdding anthropometric measures to BMI substantially improves obesity detection. Choosing the combination of anthropometric measures and BMI with awareness of sex and age-related changes better identifies at risk individuals. This new definition can be a powerful low-cost tool in detecting individuals on the obesity spectrum early in primary care settings and prevent complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.