| Title |
Metabolic syndrome and dietary patterns: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nutrition, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00394-016-1305-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Míriam Rodríguez-Monforte, Emília Sánchez, Francisco Barrio, Bernardo Costa, Gemma Flores-Mateo |
| Abstract |
Lifestyle is linked to the risk of developing metabolic syndrome (MetS); however, its relationship with dietary patterns remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyse the association of a posteriori dietary patterns with the metabolic syndrome. The PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus databases were searched for epidemiological studies of dietary patterns and MetS. The association between dietary patterns and MetS was estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 28 cross-sectional studies and three cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. In a comparison of the highest to the lowest category of prudent/healthy dietary patterns, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for MetS was 0.83 (95 % CI 0.76, 0.90; P for heterogeneity =0.0; and I (2) = 72.1 %) in cross-sectional studies, and the pooled relative risk (RR) for MetS in cohort studies was 0.91 (95 % CI 0.68, 1.21; P for heterogeneity =0.005; I (2) = 81.1 %). The pooled OR for MetS in a comparison of the highest to the lowest category of Western dietary patterns was 1.28 (95 % CI 1.17, 1.40; P for heterogeneity =0.0; and I (2) = 72.0 %) in cross-sectional studies, and the RR was 0.96 (95 % CI 0.53, 1.73; P for heterogeneity =0.102; I (2) = 62.6 %) in cohort studies. The results from cross-sectional studies showed that a prudent/healthy pattern is associated with a lower prevalence of MetS, whereas a Western/unhealthy is associated with an increased risk for MetS. Additional prospective studies are needed to confirm the association between dietary patterns and MetS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 291 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 51 | 18% |
| Unknown | 80 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 9% |
| Unknown | 101 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,861,191
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,660
of 2,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,709
of 334,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#29
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.