The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome Defined by the International Diabetes Federation Among Adults in the U.S.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE—The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) has proposed a new definition of the metabolic syndrome that emphasizes central adiposity as determined by ethnic group–specific thresholds of waist circumference. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of this syndrome using the IDF definition among U.S. adults and to compare it with the prevalence estimated using the definition of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 3,601 men and women aged ≥20 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2002 were included in the analyses. RESULTS—Based on the NCEP definition, the unadjusted prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was 34.5 ± 0.9% (percent ± SE) among all participants, 33.7 ± 1.6% among men, and 35.4 ± 1.2% among women. Based on the IDF definition, the unadjusted prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was 39.0 ± 1.1% among all participants, 39.9 ± 1.7% among men, and 38.1 ± 1.2% among women. The IDF definition led to higher estimates of prevalence in all of the demographic groups, especially among Mexican-American men. The two definitions similarly classified ∼93% of the participants as having or not having the metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS—In the U.S., the use of the IDF definition of the metabolic syndrome leads to a higher prevalence estimate of the metabolic syndrome than the estimate based on the NCEP definition.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Comment on the provisional report from the WHO consultation
(1999) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1464-5491.1999.00059.x · Cited by 1,820
American College of Endocrinology Position Statement on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome
Einhorn, D. (2003) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/ep.9.s2.5 · Cited by 1,066
Cited by
Exercise as medicine - evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases
Pedersen, B. K., & Saltin, B. (2015) · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports · doi:10.1111/sms.12581 · Cited by 3,514
WRITING GROUP MEMBERS, Lloyd-Jones, D., Adams, R., Carnethon, M., De Simone, G., Ferguson, T. B., Flegal, K., Ford, E., Furie, K., Go, A., et al. (2009) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.108.191261 · Cited by 3,140
Self-citationMeschia, J. F., Bushnell, C., Boden-Albala, B., Braun, L. T., Bravata, D. M., Chaturvedi, S., Creager, M. A., Eckel, R. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Fornage, M., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000046 · Cited by 2,650
DE HERT, M., CORRELL, C. U., BOBES, J., CETKOVICH‐BAKMAS, M., COHEN, D., ASAI, I., DETRAUX, J., GAUTAM, S., MÖLLER, H., NDETEI, D. M., et al. (2011) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00014.x · Cited by 2,488
Cornier, M.-A., Dabelea, D., Hernandez, T. L., Lindstrom, R. C., Steig, A. J., Stob, N. R., Van Pelt, R. E., Wang, H., & Eckel, R. H. (2008) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2008-0024 · Cited by 2,162
Metadata
- Authors
- Ford, E. S.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2005-11-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2745-2749
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2168561379
- Cited by
- 1,194
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 49.44
- 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: Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome Defined by the International Diabetes Federation Among Adults in the U.S. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.28.11.2745
- The paper
- Ford, E. S. (2005). Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome Defined by the International Diabetes Federation Among Adults in the U.S. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.28.11.2745
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.