Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 457

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Predictive Value of Different Measures of Obesity for Incident Cardiovascular Events and Mortality

Schneider, Harald J., Friedrich, Nele, Klotsche, Jens, Pieper, Lars, Nauck, Matthias, John, Ulrich, Dörr, Marcus, Felix, Stephan, Lehnert, Hendrik, Pittrow, David, Silber, Sigmund, Völzke, Henry, Stalla, Günter K., Wallaschofski, Henri, Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich·2010·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

CONTEXT: To date, it is unclear which measure of obesity is the most appropriate for risk stratification. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the associations of various measures of obesity with incident cardiovascular events and mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed two German cohort studies, the DETECT study and SHIP, including primary care and general population. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6355 (mean follow-up, 3.3 yr) and 4297 (mean follow-up, 8.5 yr) individuals participated in DETECT and SHIP, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: We measured body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and assessed cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of incident stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: In both studies, we found a positive association of the composite endpoint with WHtR but not with BMI. There was no heterogeneity among studies. The relative risks in the highest versus the lowest sex- and age-specific quartile of WHtR, WC, WHR, and BMI after adjustment for multiple confounders were as follows in the pooled data: cardiovascular mortality, 2.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-5.77), 1.74 (0.84-3.6), 1.71 (0.91-3.22), and 0.74 (0.35-1.57), respectively; all-cause mortality, 1.86 (1.25-2.76), 1.62 (1.22-2.38), 1.36 (0.93-1.69), and 0.77 (0.53-1.13), respectively; and composite endpoint, 2.16 (1.39-3.35), 1.59 (1.04-2.44), 1.49 (1.07-2.07), and 0.57 (0.37-0.89), respectively. Separate analyses of sex and age groups yielded comparable results. Receiver operating characteristics analysis yielded the highest areas under the curve for WHtR for predicting these endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: WHtR represents the best predictor of cardiovascular risk and mortality, followed by WC and WHR. Our results discourage the use of the BMI.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2009-1584

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 457

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, H. J., Friedrich, N., Klotsche, J., Pieper, L., Nauck, M., John, U., Dörr, M., Felix, S., Lehnert, H., Pittrow, D., Silber, S., Völzke, H., Stalla, G. K., Wallaschofski, H., & Wittchen, H.-U.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2010-04-01
Volume
95
Issue
4
Pages
1777-1785
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2096237171
Cited by
457
References
9
FWCI
22.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Predictive Value of Different Measures of Obesity for Incident Cardiovascular Events and Mortality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1210/jc.2009-1584
The paper
Schneider, H. J., Friedrich, N., Klotsche, J., Pieper, L., Nauck, M., John, U., Dörr, M., Felix, S., Lehnert, H., Pittrow, D., Silber, S., Völzke, H., Stalla, G. K., Wallaschofski, H., & Wittchen, H.-U. (2010). The Predictive Value of Different Measures of Obesity for Incident Cardiovascular Events and Mortality. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2009-1584

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.