BMI, WC, WHtR, VFI and BFI:Which Indictor is the Most Efficient Screening Index on Type 2 Diabetes in Chinese Community Population
doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.06.009
-
Key words:
- Obesity /
- Diabetes /
- BMI /
- Waist Circumference /
- Waist-to-height ratio
Abstract:
Objective Obesity is a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes, many indexes can be used to describes obesity and predict diabetes. This research attempts to identify the best indicator of obesity to screening diabetes in Chinese population. Methods A cross-sectional data of 8121 subjects aged 35-60 years were included in this research belongs to the Diabetes Appropriate Technology Intervention Study. Anthropometric indicators including body weight, height, waist circumferences (WC), body fat index (BFI) and visceral fat index (VFI) and blood biochemical indicators after an overnight fast [fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and triacylglycerol] were measured. BMI (body mass index) and Weight to Height Ratio was calculated. Results Subjects with obesity had a higher risk of physician diagnosed diabetes (OR=2.50, 95% CI 1.83-3.43), new diagnosed diabetes (OR=4.23, 95% CI 2.91-6.15) and pre-diabetes (OR=1.75, 95% CI 1.31-2.34) compared to those with normal Body mass index (BMI). There was a significant trend of increased risk of all diabetes status with increased waist circumference (WC). The waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) yielded the most significant association with new diagnosed diabetes and physician diagnosed diabetes than other indices. Conclusion Central obesity is significantly correlated with diabetes. VFI was most correlated with pre-diabetes while WHtR is an efficient screening index than BMI and WC in Chinese community diabetes screening.
Citation: | MI Sheng Quan, YIN Peng, HU Nan, LI Jian Hong, CHEN Xiao Rong, CHEN Bo, YAN Liu Xia, ZHAO Wen Hua. BMI, WC, WHtR, VFI and BFI:Which Indictor is the Most Efficient Screening Index on Type 2 Diabetes in Chinese Community Population[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(6): 485-491. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.06.009 |